Rupert Murdoch’s Liberal-ish Son Takes a Shot at Fox News

Rupert Murdoch poses with his sons, Lachlan and James, at his 2016 wedding at St. Bride's Church in London.

Max Mumby/Indigo/Getty Images

 

 James Murdoch, son of Fox News founder and conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch, is planning to invest around $1 billion in media companies—possibly including a liberal-leaning outlet. As the Financial Times reported on Tuesday, the 46-year-old, a former 21st Century Fox chief who is also expected to use his more-than-$2 billion haul from the sale of the company’s entertainment holdings to Disney to fund a comic-book publisher, has long played the role of black sheep of the Murdoch dynasty: left-leaning and, according to The New York Times, “increasingly troubled by Fox News” in the age of Donald Trump. But the possibility of funding a rival to the right-wing empire that made his father a household name could represent a new course for the younger Murdoch—and a complication of the Murdoch legacy.

Sources with “direct knowledge” of James’s plans told the Financial Times that he “wanted to distance himself from the conservative media outlets controlled for decades by his father but had yet to decide how exactly he would invest in the news media.” They added that he was eyeing a range of options, and that the process was “at an early stage.” (The F.T. could not immediately reach James Murdoch for comment.) The potential move would in part reflect the complex family dynamics between Rupert, James, and Lachlan Murdoch, the latter of whom recently took over at Fox. James had long sought to run the company, but struck out on his own last year after the reins were handed to his brother.

The report also embodies shifting political attitudes among a new generation of Murdochs. Rupert, the right-wing kingmaker, is a close ally of the president—a regular Fox News viewer who at times has seemed to use his office to help the network and hurt its rivals. But Lachlan, now the chair of the Fox Corporation, is a libertarian conservative who “doesn’t like Trump,” as one of his associates told my colleague Gabriel Sherman. That has some MAGA fans inside Fox concerned that the older Murdoch will lead the network in a less Trumpian direction. Trump himself has in recent days expressed disappointment in his beloved channel, tweeting Tuesday that it was “weird” to see Bernie Sanders in a Fox-hosted town hall, and questioning the network’s hiring of former Democratic National Committee interim chair Donna Brazile. “What’s with @FoxNews?” Trump asked, slipping in a telltale “we” in his earlier tweet.Of course, any changes in the network’s direction under Lachlan are likely to be minimal compared to what his brother might have planned. “Lachlan is not James,” a Fox News staffer told Sherman last month. James, whom the BBC once described as having been regarded “as the brightest of the Murdoch brood but . . . also something of a rebel,” has often seemed to reject the politics his surname evokes. He has long been active on climate issues and has given money to the Clinton Foundation. He and his wife, a progressive who worked for the Clinton Climate Initiative and reportedly pushed for the ouster of former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, fund liberal-leaning causes like voting rights and climate science through their Quadrivium Foundation. And, according to The New York Times, the younger Murdoch began to “object to what he felt [Fox News] had evolved into at certain hours: a political weapon with no editorial standards or concern for the value of truth and a knee-jerk defender of the president’s rhetoric and policies.” Whether James Murdoch is toying with the idea of funding a liberal outlet out of personal conviction, or as a reaction to family drama, is unclear. Either way, the result would be the clearest repudiation of his family empire yet.

Andrew McCabe celebrates Sarah Sanders' exit from White House: 'I have to say I will not miss her'

Former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe welcomed the news of the White House departure of Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, saying he "will not miss her" during an appearance on MSNBC.
President Trump announced on Thursday that Sanders will be leaving the administration at the end of the month, expressing his hope that she will run for governor in her homestate of Arkansas.
"After 3 1/2 years, our wonderful Sarah Huckabee Sanders will be leaving the White House at the end of the month and going home to the Great State of Arkansas," Trump tweeted. "She is a very special person with extraordinary talents, who has done an incredible job! I hope she decides to run for Governor of Arkansas - she would be fantastic. Sarah, thank you for a job well done!"
MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace asked McCabe to weigh in on Sanders' exit, specifically the revelation in the Mueller report where she admitted that she was not being truthful about what she suggested was the lack of the bureau support for then-FBI Director James Comey following his firing.
“You know, I knew at the time it was completely false,” McCabe responded. “It was also obvious that it was very important to the president and to his staff that we all adopt that false narrative that the FBI was happy about the fact that Jim Comey was fired, and that gleeful agents and employees were calling over to the White House to express that. Never happened, completely false from the beginning, so to see that admission in the Mueller report was enormously satisfying. I have to say I will not miss her after she departs the White House.”
Wallace laughed, boasting how her show was the first on MSNBC to ban Sanders from appearing.
“So, I literally and figuratively will not miss her, either,” Wallace added.

House hearing on reparations for slavery is set for first time in more than a decade

Is this a frigging joke?

A House hearing on reparations for slavery is set for next Wednesday, which marks the first time in more than a decade that a panel will consider slavery's "continuing impact" on the country and the next steps to "restorative justice."
The scheduled hearing held before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties will feature testimonies from writer Ta-Nehisi Coates and actor Danny Glover.
The purpose of the panel is said to “examine, through open and constructive discourse, the legacy of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade."
Former Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan first proposed that Congress study reparations in 1989 after he sponsored a bill, House Resolution 40, that he reintroduced every session until he resigned in 2017.
Democratic Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, the bill’s new sponsor, introduced it earlier this year and pushed for next week’s hearing. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that she supports a reparations study, which has not been the subject of a hearing since 2007.
The topic of reparations reemerged to national prominence as several 2020 Democratic presidential candidates signaled their support for some form of compensation for the descendants of slaves. None, however, seemed to support compensation in the traditional sense of direct payouts to black Americans.
Instead, candidates have proposed somewhat vague ideas such as using funds to create policies addressing economic inequalities that could disproportionately benefit African-Americans.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Hannity: Trump playing Democrats and the media 'like a flute'

Fox News host Sean Hannity on Thursday reiterated his belief that President Trump purposely "played" the media by saying he would listen to a foreign government who has intelligence on a political rival.
"Of course, listening to foreign research or any 'opp' research, or any reporting, anything elicit and saying you would take it to the FBI, that would not be a crime," the host said on "Hannity."
"I wonder if he knew exactly what he was doing, the exact way he was asked that question and the answer he gave because time after time, he knows the media bubble and fizz like Alka-Seltzer in water and he is playing them like a flute."
Hannity was referring to comments that Trump made during an interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos in the Oval Office. The host also shared his theory on why the president's critics are so easily manipulated.
"Here's the point, and the people you just saw, as we predicted, so blinded in their hatred for President Trump, they don't even realize they were set up like bowling pins, showing their ridiculous hypocrisy. Because they're the very same people smearing the president hour after hour," Hannity said.
Hannity continued to press critics who believe Hillary Clinton's alleged actions were fine but Trump's are supposedly illegal.
"The same ones that ignored, let's see, foreign election interference that was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC," Hannity said.
"It's like I'm the only person who cares about Bernie Sanders. No outrage by any of these people. She bought it, she sought it, she paid for it, they spread it, they tried to use it to impact the election."

Stacey Abrams Cartoons

Rep. Dan Crenshaw blasts NY Times writer, other critics: 'They have succeeded in politicizing 9/11'

Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, addressed a New York Times op-ed writer who accused him of not supporting the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund on Wednesday, calling the writer's initial accusation "inexcusable."
"That is a pretty inexcusable thing to say, you're going to stand on the graves of 9/11 victims and claim that I am not a patriot and I have not defended this country against the perpetrators of 9/11, that I have not defended this country to prevent another 9/11 from happening. It's an inexcusable accusation from the get-go," Crenshaw said on "Fox News @ Night with Shannon Bream."
New York Times contributing op-ed writer Wajahat Ali claimed on Twitter that Crenshaw hadn't sponsored the fund's renewal while praising the involvement of Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.
"Anytime a Republican says they are 'patriots' ask them if they voted to fund the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund. You know who's for it? Ilhan Omar. You know who hasn't sponsored it? Dan Crenshaw," Ali wrote in the now-deleted tweet.
"Hey 'journalist,' maybe you should check your facts. I am a co-sponsor. Nice try though," Crenshaw tweeted in response.

"It's actually really sad because they have succeeded in politicizing 9/11, they politicized this bill for the victim compensation fund and its shameful, it's absolutely shameful."
— Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas

Crenshaw dismissed the tactic, calling it "dishonest" and "cynical." He also blamed Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., for starting the trend.
"They know it's dishonest and we cannot get to this place in politics where you are seeking out something somebody hasn't cosponsored yet and claiming you are against it. They know the public doesn't understand that, they think you're voting against it," Crenshaw told Bream.
Earlier Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee passed a reauthorization bill for the 9/11 Victims’ Compensation Fund, a day after comedian Jon Stewart lambasted lawmakers for failing to attend a hearing on the bill.
Crenshaw also addressed another tweet from Ali where he called on Crenshaw to address his condemnation of  Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., and her comments about 9/11.
"Thanks for letting me know. I'm glad you did and I have no problem correcting and updating the record with facts. Now try it with your comments about Ilhan Omar. You'll feel better. Sincerely, a fellow patriot," Ali tweeted.
In April, Crenshaw criticized Omar for describing 9/11 as "some people did something." The congressman called Ali's comments "shameful."
"Defending the indefensible comments by Ilhan Omar regarding 9/11 -- which is where all of this materialized. It's actually really sad because they have succeeded in politicizing 9/11, they politicized this bill for the victim compensation fund and it's shameful, it's absolutely shameful," Crenshaw said.
Fox News' Andrew O'Reilly and Joseph A. Wulfsohn contributed to this report.

Stacey Abrams visits Hollywood to urge against boycott over Georgia's 'heartbeat' abortion law

Former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams flew to Los Angeles this week to encourage Hollywood executives and industry officials not to go through with boycotting Georgia over the state’s new heartbeat abortion law.
The film industry has threatened to boycott Georgia due to the controversial law, which makes abortions illegal once a fetal heartbeat can be detected. That typically occurs around six weeks into a pregnancy, often before women realize they are pregnant.
Though she doesn’t hold office, Abrams told Atlanta’s WSB-TV that her “mission is to make sure these jobs stay in Georgia.” She met with executives, producers, actors and low-level behind-the-scenes staffers to convince them that pulling business from Georgia would be premature.
“I don’t disparage boycotts. They have their function. But this is a situation where the political realities are that a boycott won’t have the intended effect,” she told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

“I don’t disparage boycotts. They have their function. But this is a situation where the political realities are that a boycott won’t have the intended effect.”
— Stacey Abrams

Georgia’s law won’t take effect until January but it is expected to be challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court, where it could test the precedent set by Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that made abortion legal throughout the U.S.
Abrams, therefore, urged filmmakers to wait before potentially wreaking havoc on the state’s economy.
Direct film spending in Georgia reached $2.7 billion in 2018, and the approximately 450 projects shot in the state in 2018 supported roughly 92,000 jobs, the newspaper reported. Because Georgia has one of the nation’s most generous tax-incentive programs for filmmakers, Hollywood also saves big money by shooting movies there -- roughly $800 million in 2018.
Hollywod also invested in Georgia by funding studios, soundstages and equipment that wouldn’t be easy to pull out should a boycott ensue.
Abrams made national headlines as the first black female gubernatorial candidate to be nominated by a major party when she ran in 2018. She ultimately lost but refused to concede to Republican Brian Kemp who signed the heartbeat bill into law after taking office. Some expect a Kemp-Abrams rematch in 2022.
Kemp said the backlash from Hollywood does not change his position: He supports life and the film industry tax credit. He canceled a trip to visit Hollywood in May given wind of potential protests.

How much do polls showing Dems trouncing Trump really mean?

The media, which are always enamored of polls, are really loving them right now.
That's because they show President Trump getting his butt kicked.
And while the latest numbers certainly aren't good for the president, I'm going to flash a giant yellow warning light here.
It's early, as everyone knows, but the problems run deeper than that.
The pundits are agog over a new Quinnipiac University survey that shows Joe Biden clobbering Trump, 53 to 40 percent.
Not only that, but other Democrats beat Trump by lesser margins: Bernie Sanders (51 to 42 percent). Kamala Harris (49 to 41). Elizabeth Warren (49 to 42). Pete Buttigieg (47 to 42). Cory Booker (47 to 42).
The Q poll is widely respected, but here's the thing:
If Joe or Bernie or Kamala or one of the others is up against Trump in November of 2020, he or she is not going to be seen by the public as the same person as during the current campaign spring training period.
The eventual nominee will have endured a year and a half of denunciations by Trump, his campaign, his allies, and his surrogates. That's along with millions of dollars in negative advertising by pro-Trump and independent groups and constant attacks from conservatives in the media.
In short, the person on the ballot will be fairly battered and bloodied.
And the Republicans have no monopoly on this. The Obama camp, the Democrats and liberals in the media pounded Mitt Romney, long before he became the nominee, as a heartless executive, flip-flopper and goofball.
Now by this logic, Trump will also be more scuffed up by the fall of 2020 than he is now. But that will be nothing new. He's been pounded by the press and his opponents since the last campaign, and while he'll have to defend his record, all the personal controversies — his business record, women, hush money — are pretty well known.
By contrast, no Democrat running, including Biden, has been through the searing scrutiny of running at the top of the ticket. So the race will tighten. Nobody is going to win by 13 points.
Meanwhile, Trump tried to push back hard on a New York Times piece which said: "After being briefed on a devastating 17-state poll conducted by his campaign pollster, Tony Fabrizio, Mr. Trump told aides to deny that his internal polling showed him trailing Mr. Biden in many of the states he needs to win."
Politico had reported earlier that the polling showed Biden ahead of Trump in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
The president never explicitly denied the Times account. But when asked by a reporter yesterday, he said "there were some fake polls" put out by "the corrupt media ... We have some internal polling, very little, and it's very strong."
Was he denying that the Fabrizio polls were "devastating"?
Or was he going after other surveys, such as the much-touted Quinnipiac poll? It wasn't clear.
If it's the latter, the university said that it stands by its numbers after 25 years of independent polling.
"We're used to this," Quinnipiac said. "Whoever is on the wrong side in a poll attacks the poll."
Kellyanne Conway, a career pollster, offered some caveats yesterday.
"When the president says we have some of the best numbers we ever had," the White House counselor said, "he means among Republicans and he also means among some of the individuals who voted for him last time."
Obviously, it will take more than just winning Republicans for Trump to get to 270.
Conway added that when "the president says he has the best numbers ever, he is also talking about the unemployment numbers, growth numbers, the optimism numbers."
For all the back and forth, it's clear that an incumbent president who's not higher than 42 percent has his work cut out for him.
But the latest polls are more than ephemeral. They reflect a political landscape that may be radically changed once people start voting.