Fox News under attack from within News Corp.



I looked at News Corps Financials. In early 2009, revenues from Movies and Television dropped, causing the 2009 top line to be less than 2008. NWSA's fiscal year is July through June, so the June 2009 statements reflect the big dip as the financial markets were unwinding in 2008. FY2009 revenues were $30.4B vs. $33B the prior fiscal year.

Everyone who could was writing down assets in that period - when a market corrects, companies tidy up their balance sheet by writing off assets which have dropped in market value. Given the big drop in valuations of assets across the economy, it was quite easy to justify a writedown of the part of the WSJ purchase. (Mark to market accounting applies.) The writedown included more than WSJ - it concerned a portfolio of print properties.

Revenues and profitability have since rebounded - it will be interesting to see the March 31st earnings release to see if this improvement continues.
 
Last edited:


I looked at News Corps Financials. In early 2009, revenues from Movies and Television dropped, causing the 2009 top line to be less than 2008. NWSA's fiscal year is July through June, so the June 2009 statements reflect the big dip as the financial markets were unwinding in 2008. FY2009 revenues were $30.4B vs. $33B the prior fiscal year.

Everyone who could was writing down assets in that period - when a market corrects, companies tidy up their balance sheet by writing off assets which have dropped in market value. Given the big drop in valuations of assets across the economy, it was quite easy to justify a writedown of the part of the WSJ purchase. (Mark to market accounting applies.) The writedown included more than WSJ - it concerned a portfolio of print properties.

Revenues and profitability have since rebounded - it will be interesting to see the March 31st earnings release to see if this improvement continues.

That is all well and good.

There is no doubt that the WSJ deal was a disaster for News Corp. It was more about a personal vandetta than market sense.
 
Liberals dont care much for the 1st ammendment.

FOX gets ratings

eat it

Which ends up being a moral question for the owners. Do you continue being an outlet with no journalistic credibility and feed off the conservative's desire to be force fed propaganda and make $700 million a year, or do you become legit and only make $200 million a year. It seems the owners are taking the moral stance. Good for them.
 
Last edited:
If I was Rupert Murdoch, I would leave my News Corporation holdings to a nice, young conservative man who will keep the goose laying her golden eggs. Murdoch's family should get nothing if they have such contempt for what he has created.

On the other hand, if the liberal family members do get control and change the format to be Left of MSNBC, then some smart young conservative man will start his own version of the old FoxNews. It's not difficult, all you have to do is be fair and balanced in your reporting.
 
That is all well and good.

There is no doubt that the WSJ deal was a disaster for News Corp. It was more about a personal vandetta than market sense.


It isn't a disaster in a business sense. It's a very valuable property, especially now that the stock market has recovered from the March 2009 lows.

The only people to whom it is a disaster are those who are either threatened by Murdoch's success or the parasites he has made rich and now disdain the source of their wealth (often the case with those who are fortunate through no merit of their own). And of course, the Left Wing folks who are horrified that anyone who doesn't agree with them is successful - their knickers are always in a twist.
 
And the Saudi's have donated $10M to the Clinton Library.

We made them rich; now they are spending and investing their wealth. That is hardly surprising.
 
Liberals dont care much for the 1st ammendment.

FOX gets ratings

eat it

Which ends up being a moral question for the owners. Do you continue being an outlet with no journalistic credibility and feed off the conservative's desire to be force fed propaganda and make $700 million a year, or do you become legit and only make $200 million a year. It seems the owners are taking the moral stance. Good for them.
Oh give us a fucking break here. If you think Fox is so biased to the right, then admit that the rest of the news media is biased toward the Left. If you can't then you are a moron and have nothing useful to contribute.
 
I bet anybody right now there is no 'attack from within' and this is more of the usual 'invent-a-crisis' so many far left people like to do about things they hate.
 
I bet anybody right now there is no 'attack from within' and this is more of the usual 'invent-a-crisis' so many far left people like to do about things they hate.

Sticking up for Fox, I see. :lol:
In this case yes, because its the only channel willing to take on that big government stooge Obama.

Plus I have seen this kind of nonsense before, make shit up and run with it.
 
picture_3.png


fox-20080702-redicliffe.jpg


Fox standards are kept at a level maintained by no other news organization.
 
I bet anybody right now there is no 'attack from within' and this is more of the usual 'invent-a-crisis' so many far left people like to do about things they hate.

Sticking up for Fox, I see. :lol:
In this case yes, because its the only channel willing to take on that big government stooge Obama.

Plus I have seen this kind of nonsense before, make shit up and run with it.

:lol:

Fox is destroying journalism, and you guys just sit back and let them do it.
 
I bet anybody right now there is no 'attack from within' and this is more of the usual 'invent-a-crisis' so many far left people like to do about things they hate.

If the owners aren't from within, I don't know who is.

Seems like you might be a little upset and willing to dismiss what was stated because it goes against what you believe about the outlet.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top