News Corporation

Have I got news for you

The Murdochs’ scandal-plagued media company has proved surprisingly resilient

See article

Readers' comments



Bribery does wonders for a company doesn't it?

That's the only reason this company hasn't been dismantled completely by now. Rupert's paying people off. He's a criminal of the first order and needs to spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement.

Pete Turner

I agree the "Murdoch factor" is the biggest drawback to the share price. I sold mine in 2007 when I could finally get a decent return after years of holding them. Murdoch's primary concern is not, as many on the left claim, wielding political power, but holding on to corporate power and ensuring the continuation of his dynasty.

Murdoch has constructed the company to ensure he cannot be deposed as head and his children will take over, regardless of their talent. Thus we have voting and non-voting stock, and the history of Newscorp it littered with ruthless dealings such as the infamous poison pill threat in 2004 to dilute stock when John Malone’s Liberty Media acquired 18 percent, which saw the share price plummet.

I wouldn't touch Newscorp shares while Rupert is still in charge, and I'm not sure I'd touch them when his children take over. Murdoch's real legacy - his love and support of newspapers - is the company's weakness, and I doubt television's long term prospects. No one under 25 seems to watch it anymore, apart from downloading series.


I have been watching the News Corp stocks ever since Rupert Murdoch claimed he had 5 billion dollars to buy back stock. I have noticed a lot of insider trading since. Employees and relatives of Rupert are aggressively buying stocks on option and selling them later. (Most likely with Rupert's money) My question is: If a person buys stock on a discount then sells the stock at normal rates, they are going to make money even if the history of the stock is flat. Now, if the person continues to buy and sell, repeatedly investing these earnings back into the stock, wouldn't the value of the stock go up bolstered merely by the volume of sale. And, if this is true, then there is no real money backing the stock's value and it is merely a bubble waiting to burst in which Rupert has already cashed in every one else's investments.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
The Economist explains: The meaning of Manhattanhenge
The Economist explains 1 hrs 15 mins ago
Alibaba's IPO: Shocked, shocked!
Schumpeter July 13th, 18:10
World Cup predictions: Scoring ourselves
Graphic detail July 12th, 19:03
Car technology: Turbocharged
Schumpeter July 12th, 9:00


Products and events



