Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

News Corp Australia Doesn't Want You To Look Closely At Their Financials

Posted by timothy on from the but-they're-australian-dollars dept.

Presto Vivace writes with news of an embarrassing discovery for Rupert Murdoch's News Corp about the company's financial state, which might draw less attention if News Corp hadn't tried to prevent people from using the information: "The existential crisis that has gripped Rupert Murdoch's Australian arm began with a rude discovery just after 2pm on Wednesday afternoon. The Crikey news website had stumbled across some of News Corp's most intimate lingerie, and had just put it all up on the the net. ... The 276-page document is called the Blue Book, a weekly and year-to-date rundown of results at June 30, 2013 for every News Corp business in the country. ... The great newspaper engine which was Rupert Murdoch's original springboard to take over the world was already under stress. In 2013, 70 per cent of its earnings disappeared, leaving operating income precariously balanced at $87.6 million. As Crikey pointed out, trying hard not to gloat, another year even half as bad as 2013 could put News Australia into the red." Crikey took the documents off line after legal threats, but it seems not before business reporters all over the world had a chance to download them."

132 comments

  1. Rupert Murdoch Streisand by Dutchmaan · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Don't look at my financials... nothing to see here!!!! seriously go away!"

    1. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 4, Interesting

      News Corp is a corrupt corporation.

    2. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by QRDeNameland · · Score: 3, Funny

      Personally, I would have gone with "Put another shrimp on the barbie Streisand, mate."

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    3. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Put another shrimp on the barbie Streisand, mate."

      Sorry mate, but what the bloody hell you mean by a "shrimp?"

    4. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by QRDeNameland · · Score: 3, Funny

      I dunno, ask Paul Hogan and the Australian Tourism Commission.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    5. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HEAR ALL ABOUT IT ON FOX NEWS!

      Oh wait Nothing To See!, Nothing To See Move Along On Fox News!

    6. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You link explains my quip nicely (and yes I got the original reference):

      "Barbie" is Australian slang for barbecue and the phrase "slip a shrimp on the barbie", for Americans, often evokes images of a fun social gathering under the sun. Australians, however, invariably use the word prawn rather than shrimp. [emphasis added]

    7. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      News Corp is a corrupt corporation.

      It is also a public company (Nasdaq:NWS) and, as such, is required to publicly disclose financials. Hiding financial information, and misleading investors, is illegal.

    8. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      News Corp is a corrupt corporation.

      It is also a public company (Nasdaq:NWS) and, as such, is required to publicly disclose financials. Hiding financial information, and misleading investors, is illegal.

      There are very specific rules they have to follow and simply claiming they need to reveal all financial information to the public is pretty much false. I'm not going to disagree with the idea that news corp isn't really news... they're an entertainment company that tells a certain group of people what they want to hear... and makes a lot of money doing it. But this whole notion that they're some sort of evil empire secretly controlling peoples minds? It's a joke... they don't need to convince their viewers of what they're showing them... that's how those viewers already saw the world and Newscorp is playing to that crowd.

      All people, everywhere, no matter what political view they have, will search out information that re-enforces their own world view. And make no mistake, we are all wrong. Every single one of us. I've heard just as much ridiculous misguided nonsense come out of left as I've heard come out of the right.

    9. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 1

      goodness gracious me, I had not thought of that.

    10. Re: Rupert Murdoch Streisand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      FOOKIN PRAWNS

    11. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by mjwx · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Put another shrimp on the barbie Streisand, mate."

      Sorry mate, but what the bloody hell you mean by a "shrimp?"

      It's an Americanism that no Australian would use.

      We call them prawns, we also dont barbecue them.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    12. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by crafty.munchkin · · Score: 4, Informative

      You clearly aren't aware that in Australia, News Corpse has about 70% market share.

      --
      ... wait, what?
    13. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      claiming they need to reveal all financial information to the public is pretty much false.

      Nobody claimed that. They do need to disclose basic financial information, and hiding a 70% drop in earnings from public shareholders is almost certainly illegal.

      All people, everywhere, no matter what political view they have, will search out information that re-enforces their own world view.

      Not true. I make a specific effort to listen to news sources that conflict with my world view. I know others that do the same. I tend to lean libertarian, but get most of my news from PBS and NPR which tend to view government and collective social action as the solution to most problems.

    14. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by DeathElk · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't barbecue them?! Speak for yourself. Soak green king prawns in lemon juice and garlic until the lemon begins to cook them slightly, then throw on the barbecue. Fuckin' unreal.

    15. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      News Corp is corrupt because they cracked some encryption and made a legal profit from it?

      Are you seriously peddling that to the slashdot crowd?

    16. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by MobSwatter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear...

    17. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this whole notion that they're some sort of evil empire secretly controlling peoples minds?

      You really don't know much about News Corp do you.

    18. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont BBQ PRAWNS???

      WTF are you going on about, yes we bloody well do!

    19. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, some will cook them this way (certainly not unheard of), but as the parent post was indicating it is not the typical way to cook prawns here in Australia.

      When we have a barbecue we'll stick anything on them, but typically, prawns are cooked in the kitchen and not on the barbecue.

      I like mine pan fried in butter and garlic.

      Shrimp is something we use for fish bait.

    20. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is exactly why News Corporation got the Liberal Party and Tony Abbott elected on the basis that they would kill the NBN because broadband is killing News Corporation and you need look no further than MySpace to see what kind of internet fuckups they are, bought for $580 million and sold for $35 million. With the 70% dominance in news and a months long propaganda campaign the got corrupt politicians elected who immediately set out to kill broadband in Australia and the news competition it provides. However that blatant propaganda killed the trust of Australian public for Newscorp and Fox not-News et al and they are losing market share all over the place.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    21. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by vivian · · Score: 2

      Shrimp and prawns are infact two different and distinct beasties, though easily confused, because they look superficially similar.
      This handy guude might help:
      http://museumvictoria.com.au/discoverycentre/infosheets/what-is-the-difference-between-prawns-and-shrimp/

      Since the adds were run in the US, where shrimp was the delicious type of crustaceon ready to throw onto afore mentioned cooking surface, that was the right word to use.
      No doubt, when back here in his native Oz, Hoges reverts back to the more locally appropriate 'prawn' nomenclature.

    22. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shrimp and prawns are infact two different and distinct beasties, though easily confused, because they look superficially similar.

      The biological differences notwithstanding as words denoting food, Australians will call both prawns, with the possible (and rare) exception alluded to in your linked article. Seriously, the bods at the museum are not about to change usage here.

      Since the adds were run in the US ... [shrimp] was the right word to use.

      Despite that the fact that the footage, shot in Australia, shows a (biological) prawn? Well in fact, yes, it was the right word to use in the US, but for linguistic rather than biological imperatives. I dunno ... scientists!? Do they really think we care about all that sciency stuff?

      No doubt, when back here in his native Oz, Hoges reverts back to the more locally appropriate 'prawn' nomenclature.

      None whatsoever.

    23. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by cryptolemur · · Score: 3, Funny

      In a free market society they would have to disclose all information, of course. Otherwise the market would not work properly, because the consumers could not make well informed decision...

    24. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure, why not?
      The complaint that usually shows up is that a teenager cracking encryption for lulz gets labeled as a cyberterrorist and is put in jail for longer than a murderer would be while multinational companies gets away with it.
      While it can be discussed what a reasonable punishment should be the major problem is that the law isn't applied equally among people.
      My claim is that it is unfair that the rich gets away with a crime that the poor gets punished for. For some reason people misinterpret that as me wanting it the other way around. If I was aiming for hypocrisy I would be content with things as they are.

    25. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've yet to see evidence of this. Do you know how many news organisations there are in Australia and can you name who owns them. I'll bet 70% are not owned by Newscorp

    26. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what big company isn't corrupt, or doesn't have at least some corrupt owners, executives or board members? in this u.s. that's easy answer... they all are. i would say odds are it's the same anywhere.

    27. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 3, Informative
      From the first google hit for 'shrimp vs prawn':

      Prawns are larger in size, and have larger legs with claws on three pairs. They have branching gills. Shrimp are smaller, have shorter legs and have claws only on two pairs. Their gills are lamellar, i.e. plate-like.

      Prawns and shrimp are both decapod crustaceans i.e. that they have exoskeletons and 10 legs. They can be found in salt water and fresh water all over the world, typically swimming in search of food. Both shrimp and prawns tend to stay near the ocean floor. They also have similar flavors, and come in a wide range of sizes from minuscule to quite large.

      In commercial farming and fisheries, the terms shrimp and prawn are often used interchangeably. But of late, the term "prawn" only signifies freshwater forms of palaemonids and "shrimp" for the marine penaeids.

      In the United Kingdom, the word “prawn” is more common on menus than “shrimp”; while it’s the opposite in North America. The term “prawn” is also loosely used to describe any large shrimp, especially those that come 15 (or fewer) to the pound (such as “king prawns”, yet sometimes known as “jumbo shrimp”).

      Australia and some other Commonwealth nations follow this British usage to an even greater extent, using the word “prawn” almost exclusively. When Australian comedian Paul Hogan used the phrase, “I'll slip an extra shrimp on the barbie for you” in an American television advertisement, it was intended to make what he was saying easier for his American audience to understand, and was thus a deliberate distortion of what an Australian would typically say.

      In Britain very small crustaceans with a brownish shell are called shrimp, and are used to make potted shrimp. They are also used in dishes where they are not the primary ingredient.

      Prawns and shrimp are two different things. From another source:

      Shrimp have branching gills, a side plate that overlays segments in front and behind, and carry their eggs outside of their bodies beneath their tails.

      Prawns have lameller gills, side plates that overlap tile-like from front to back, and carry their eggs inside their bodies near their tails.

      So indeed, we've established that Australian English is less expressive than American English, at least when it comes to these crustaceans.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    28. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, in a truly free market, everyone would have to pay the going rate for that information (and to have the meat you're about to buy to be tested/inspected).

    29. Re: Rupert Murdoch Streisand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're really saying is that you don't understand what market share is.

    30. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      All people, everywhere, no matter what political view they have, will search out information that re-enforces their own world view.

      Not true. I make a specific effort to listen to news sources that conflict with my world view. I know others that do the same. I tend to lean libertarian, but get most of my news from PBS and NPR which tend to view government and collective social action as the solution to most problems.

      I don't know how your answer is insightful. Your reasoning does not invalidate the GP post. Your answer is that you search out for information of the opposite side of your world view which has nothing to do with the GP statement. Do you search out for information of the same world view side you are viewing? If you never and will never do it at all, then you may say that it is not true; otherwise, I still see that the GP statement stands.

      Also, to me, even though the post implies relation to politic, the GP post can apply to other thing else as well. In other words, (I believe) it is true that everyone would look for information that re-enforces their own bias and try to ignore others (not only in political info). I doubt that there is even a single person in the world who has no bias in any thing at all. This, however, does not mean that anyone will never change their bias once they encounter different information.

    31. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      News is not dependent on broadband, but streaming video is.

    32. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by mspohr · · Score: 1

      "A free market is a market system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between sellers and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority. "

      A couple of things here:
      - meat inspection would be government interference in the market
      - wouldn't paying for information cause interference in the free consent between sellers and consumers?
      - buyers and sellers must each have free access to all information

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    33. Re: Rupert Murdoch Streisand by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what he said.

    34. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      prawn in down under speak.

    35. Re: Rupert Murdoch Streisand by qraal01 · · Score: 1

      Socialism! Free market information? What's it worth to you?

    36. Re: Rupert Murdoch Streisand by mspohr · · Score: 1

      The free market isn't free?

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    37. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in the UK. Over the last few decades I have watched The Sun 'news'paper (owned by Newscorp) promote a Tory party that became government, then a Labour party that became government, and so on...

      I'd say Sun 'readers' are sheeple that are easily influenced by very cleverly written (and sometimes quite amusing) lowbrow bollocks. Yes, Sun 'readers' may have ingrained prejudices (their world view, if you like) but it appears to be quite easy for the Sun to play them by matching the party that Newscorp supports with those prejudices. You know the sort of thing: "last election the Tories were tougher on [insert mob pleaser here], but THIS election, Labour is tougher on [same mob pleaser]." Yes, people "will search out information that re-enforces their own world view" but they will also be easily swayed as to which particular political party "re-enforces their own world view".

      I'm afraid I think you might have your argument, as the Sun might say, arse about face.

    38. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. No, we have both shrimps and prawns in Dahnunder. They're different things, believe it or not.

      2. The canonical form is 'Slip another shrimp on the barbie'. I don't blame you youngsters for not knowing that.

    39. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tired refrain of the jilted leftards doesn't change the fact that Murdoch backs in Labor as much as he backs in Liberal.

      I vividly recall the Murdoch media backing in Rudd and other former Labor governments both federal and state.

    40. Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      You mean to tell me that someone actually paid $35M for Myspace?

  2. It would be really nice.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If News Corp went bust and Murdoch lost every cent. He utterly deserves that

    1. Re: It would be really nice.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the fact the Newscorp was split from Twentieth Century Fox (almost makes you think they were aware of impending doom at the time of the split) back in 2013...

      If Newscorp vaporized Murdoch would be left with a company with a market cap of 77.37B.

      You almost feel sorry for him, almost...

    2. Re:It would be really nice.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'll never happen. The taxpayer will stump up the money to save him. Too big to fail, too many powerful friends, and all that. But yes, it would be very, very nice.

    3. Re: It would be really nice.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There'd be riots in the streets if the government handed over funds to newscorp. There'd be no way it could be justified.

    4. Re: It would be really nice.... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Riot police would "calm" the protesters and money would be handed anyway. This happened when money was handed in much larger quantities to investment banks. This will be peanuts in comparison.

      Oligarchy is well in control, and pretence of democracy isn't going to shield you from their wrath when you little people try to stomp all over their rights to fuck you over.

    5. Re: It would be really nice.... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be that obvious. What would happen is dome government department would need to get a message out so they will purchade a lot of premium advertising space at thr new premium rates.

      The public would never know.

    6. Re: It would be really nice.... by rossdee · · Score: 2

      "It wouldn't be that obvious. What would happen is It wouldn't be that obvious. What would happen is dome government department

      is this dome government department located near Chesters Mill ?

    7. Re: It would be really nice.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got your domes mixed up, this is Australia so that would be Broken Hill.

    8. Re: It would be really nice.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except they did exactly that shortly after the election. My memory fails me but it was in the order of $800 million. The excuse they gave was something about taxes the company paid.

  3. And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yet, News Corp's various media outlets here in the U.S. have enough adulating morons to support the company worldwide for years to come. They don't have to worry.

    1. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They live in an echo chamber. Let them waste their money.

  4. Too little, too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, it's about 30 years too late for this news to spell real trouble for Rupert Murdoch.

    Now, if the story covered News UK, Dow Jones and HarperCollins as well, then there'd be cause to rejoice.

    1. Re:Too little, too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know it doesn't?

  5. New for Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why is this on slashdot? It's nothing.

    1. Re:New for Nerds? by WillKemp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not nothing. It's a glimmer of hope for us here in Australia, that that piece of shit Murdoch could eventually lose his near monopoly in Australian newspapers - and, therefore, a significant part of his ability to manipulate the government. And not before time.

    2. Re:New for Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Any bad news for Murdoch is good news for humanity. He's a walking, talking plague.

    3. Re:New for Nerds? by godel_56 · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's not nothing. It's a glimmer of hope for us here in Australia, that that piece of shit Murdoch could eventually lose his near monopoly in Australian newspapers - and, therefore, a significant part of his ability to manipulate the government. And not before time.

      With our luck, he'd probably sell the papers to Gina Rinehart. :-(

    4. Re:New for Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this on slashdot? It's nothing.

      Because we haven't all been Murdoctrinated.

    5. Re:New for Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A good percent of the reason why there are repulsive idiots in power in Western democracies is due to Murdoch.

      It's stuff that matters.

    6. Re:New for Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      you're full of shit. Murdoch owns approx 30% of newspapers in Australia - that is nothing like a monopoly. However, his newspapers make up for over 60% of sales. That is not a monopoly.

      You are distorting facts to support your position.

    7. Re:New for Nerds? by WillKemp · · Score: 4, Informative

      News Ltd owns the only national daily paper, as well as the only daily paper in four state capitals, one territory capital, and a number of large regional centres - of the capitals, only Melbourne, Sydney, and Canberra have competing daily papers. Admittedly, that covers nearly half the population - but that leaves a massive proportion of Australia dominated by Murdoch.

    8. Re:New for Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the Republicans hate technology and are starting to put engineers in prison. This moron rules Faux Knews and thus is responsible for many of the deaths. That is the way with their kind. This is most certainly news that we should all be concerned about. The more desperate he gets, the more likely he'll kill more of us.

    9. Re: New for Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't change the facts - Murdoch does not have a monopoly. His papers sell better than others because people want to buy them. And because the left wing news in Australia has a massive tax payer funded competitor in the ABC. Pretty hard for Fairfax to compete against the ABC with its $1.1 billion budget.

      So on the left we have Fairfax, which sells its news and the ABC which gives it away for free. Doesn't take a genius to work out why Fairfax is going broke. How the hell can they compete against the largest news organisation in the country (yes, the ABC) when the ABC doesn't have to turn a profit to keep going?

      On the right we have Murdoch and other smaller companies, all of whom compete on merit.

      Until the ABC is forced to charge, or forced to not compete, the left media in Australia are stuffed.

    10. Re:New for Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't blame him if he provides what people want. Maybe the other papers should get off their arses and produce something thats not crap

    11. Re:New for Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation needed. You're a moron greenwow.

    12. Re:New for Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama is in power because of Murdoch?

    13. Re:New for Nerds? by jfengel · · Score: 2

      Does anybody read them?

      In the US, the newspaper industry has been flailing for decades. TV was eating their lunch even before the Internet did. The national "newspapers of record" still have some sway, but they no longer swing elections. They are still the last best hope of serious journalism as the fourth estate, but there's just not much left of it.

      In the US, it's not even fishwrap; people just don't buy them. They do get it online, but what little actual news is in that stream is mostly thinly rewritten (or not) wire reports.

      Is it any better in Australia?

    14. Re:New for Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shut up Rupert

    15. Re:New for Nerds? by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      I don't have any figures on hand, but it seems that people do still read them. And they certainly appear to have a huge influence on election outcomes.

    16. Re:New for Nerds? by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Can only speak from personal experience, but most people I encounter read either of the main rags online as a way to pass the time at work. I'm a contractor so work in many different office, and every office I go I see either Fairfax (smh.com.au) or News (news.com.au) on screen of worker bees. I can only imagine how many man-hours are wasted on this activity every day across the country.

    17. Re:New for Nerds? by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Thanks!

  6. Here's why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Because Slashdot is full of slavish Fox News lovers. Any criticism of them, or in this case, their parent company, generates NERD RAGE! And nerd rage generates page clicks. Profit!

    1. Re:Here's why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      It's getting close to an election season in the US. Slashdot will be a left wing blog with posters screaming and swearing at each other for the next couple of months.

    2. Re:Here's why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Admit it! You're the parent AC posting some fake rightist nerd rage just to prove you own point, yeah?

  7. Odd... by jd2112 · · Score: 1

    Didn't they have enough money to try to purchase Time Warner just a few months ago?

    --
    Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    1. Re:Odd... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't they have enough money to try to purchase Time Warner just a few months ago?

      They presumably were going to use available cheap credit to make the transaction.

    2. Re:Odd... by viperidaenz · · Score: 5, Informative

      You don't buy companies with cash, you use stock.

      That way it's all just funny money.

    3. Re:Odd... by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 2

      News Corp by its fingertips: Rupert Murdoch’s Australian newspapers eye the abyss

  8. Not Unexpected by TranquilVoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's hardly surprising for a company to hold its financial results close to its chest, but this is made more delicious given how much time they spend pointing out the downsizing of rival Fairfax Media.

    Fairfax papers, especially, have suffered from the internet while News Corp has soldiered on, but it was only a matter of time. Being more left-wing, Fairfax's demographic is younger and more inclined to embrace new technology. As they age, and likely become more conservative, they will still consume news online rather than return to dead tree papers.

    1. Re:Not Unexpected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being more left-wing, Fairfax's demographic is younger and more inclined to embrace new technology.

      You mean less likely to pay for their news, hence Fairfax's woes...

  9. Good! by GrahamCox · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of cunts. The sooner they go down the toilet the better for the country.

    1. Re:Good! by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting for that arsehole Murdoch to die - but given that his mum lived to over 100, i'm not holding my breath!

    2. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm waiting for that arsehole Murdoch to die - but given that his mum lived to over 100, i'm not holding my breath!

      Are we sure "he" is even human? There's no telling how long it will live.

    3. Re:Good! by drfred79 · · Score: 2

      People who are angry live shorter lives. This with clean consciouses live longer.

    4. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People who are angry live shorter lives. This with clean consciouses live longer.

      If he is a sociopath, he does have a clean conscience.

    5. Re:Good! by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      I don't think Murdoch's got much cause to be angry - he gets his way in pretty much everything. He's just a cynical, manipulative, evil scumbag. And i'm quite sure he's more than happy to be that way.

    6. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It appears my nightly prayers that Shepard Smith lose his job might be coming true. Pray harder!

    7. Re:Good! by Sasayaki · · Score: 2

      The problem is, if he's a sociopath he sleeps like a baby every night.

      --
      Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    8. Re:Good! by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Mean people never die, they just nasty away.

    9. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of cunts. The sooner they go down the toilet the better for the country.

      Couldn't agree more.

    10. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he is a sociopath, he has no conscience

      .

      FTFY

  10. Not to be a grammar Nazi but... by Cantankerous+Cur · · Score: 0

    'Percent' is one word. '%' would've also been an acceptable answer.

    1. Re:Not to be a grammar Nazi but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      'Percent' is one word.

      That's a usage we should now probably have to concede. However per cent is surely the more correct, except perhaps in US English.

  11. What about Foxtel? by jonwil · · Score: 2

    Does this stuff say anything about the performance (good or otherwise) of Rupert's other big Australian media asset, Foxtel?

    1. Re:What about Foxtel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes - Foxtel's profitability depended upon cancellation (or emasculation) of the National Broadband Network, and so the News Corp. papers were used as propaganda machines to ensure the election of a government that would see that happened.

    2. Re:What about Foxtel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, let's all say it together.

      Fuck you Rupert.

    3. Re: What about Foxtel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would Foxtel's profitability be affected by the popularity of the NBN? NBN is just the network wholesaler, Foxtel can run over IP (like it does today with Foxtel for Xbox). If anything, wouldn't Foxtel be able to reach more customers over the NBN?

    4. Re: What about Foxtel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't bring logic into an argument with these idiots. All they can see is their blind hatred of Abbott because he smacked their arses in the last election

  12. This is old news by drfred79 · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure I heard this years ago. Murdoch has been subsidizing his original paper out of nostalgia. What a non-story though. They only made multi-millions and if they keep only making multi-millions, one day, in the far future, they could possibly go in the red. The government does that every day.

    1. Re:This is old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats ok, no problem then Murdoch can just increase taxes, or simply print some more money. Whats that you say, he can't because he's not a government and only thinks he is because he controls one. Ummm ok then.....

  13. What a SHAME! by mikeiver1 · · Score: 0

    Couldn't have happened to a bigger asshole. Don't wish to see people out of work but I would love to see that prick poor.

  14. Never look back. by westlake · · Score: 2

    Successful entrepreneurs are notoriously unsentimental.

    To put things in perspective:

    On May 2, 2014, News Corp acquired romance novel publisher Harlequin Enterprises from Torstar for $415 million. The deal closed On August 1 2014.

    News Corp

    Harlequin Enterprises Limited engages in the publishing and sale of books for women worldwide. The company publishes printed and electronic books in various languages in the areas of romance, fiction, nonfiction, young adult novels, erotic literature, and fantasy. The company was founded in 1949 and is based in Don Mills, Canada with additional offices in Toronto, New York, London, Tokyo, Milan, Sydney, Paris, Madrid, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Athens, Budapest, Granges-Paccot*, Warsaw, Rio de Janeiro, Mumbai, and Istanbul.

    Company Overview of Harlequin Enterprises Limited

    Harlequin will become part of News Corp's HarperCollins group.

    -----
    * - Granges-Paccot is a municipality in the district of Sarine in the canton of Fribourg in Switzerland. [I just had to look this up,]

    1. Re:Never look back. by grcumb · · Score: 2

      Harlequin Enterprises Limited engages in the publishing and sale of books for women worldwide. The company publishes printed and electronic books in various languages in the areas of romance, fiction, nonfiction, young adult novels, erotic literature, and fantasy. The company was founded in 1949 and is based in Don Mills, Canada with additional offices in Toronto, New York, London, Tokyo, Milan, Sydney, Paris, Madrid, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Athens, Budapest, Granges-Paccot*, Warsaw, Rio de Janeiro, Mumbai, and Istanbul.

      Company Overview of Harlequin Enterprises Limited....

      -----
      * - Granges-Paccot is a municipality in the district of Sarine in the canton of Fribourg in Switzerland. [I just had to look this up,]

      I'm going to take a wild guess and speculate that the Swiss arm of the business is curiously profitable. Swiss people just LOVE romance novels. Profitable ones especially.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
  15. New for Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why is this on slashdot?

    Because it was posted by Timothy, and it involved a website, and websites are served by computers, so it must be "News for Nerds"

  16. it doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they'll keep on ticking no matter the losses, the media is too valuable a tool for Zionist organised crime

  17. Source Documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone grab a copy of the hundreds of pages of original source documents of Crikey, before they were forced to pull them down?

  18. Somebody 'esplain this to me by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Pretty much every comment on this story is troll-worthy flamebait. Shouldn't the story itself be modded down accordingly?

    1. Re:Somebody 'esplain this to me by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Stop trying to ruin the fun.

  19. This is an effect of the News Corp restructure by Harlequin80 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is neither really news or particularly surprising. The News behemoth went through a restructure recently which pushed all its low performing assets into a different vehicle. Basically Rupert is in love with newspapers and he continues to support them even though the ROI is not there. When he leaves expect the papers to disappear as well.

  20. When are you leaving, Rupert? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The day this worm is gone the world will automatically become a better place.

  21. Murdoch's Pirates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the best books I've read.
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B009VA1NVU?pc_redir=1408143782&robot_redir=1

  22. Not anymore Beta! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can I escape this silly sistem?

  23. CRIKEY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My first thought: It's still too soon to see that word in a context other "the crocodile hunter" parodies. RIP, Steve Irwin.

  24. See: Citizen Kane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure at least 98 per cent of the newspapers would like to have numbers this good. Newspapers are a vanity play and political contribution sleight at this point in time for the most part. People will keep them running until they can't afford it any more.

  25. Bad news is good news! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

    Any news that is bad for Rupert Murdoch is good news for the world.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  26. Either way... by Rick+in+China · · Score: 1

    I'd love to see Murdoch go down in flames, but this wont be the cause.

    However, he's ancient, he'll be dead soon anyways. He looks like a turtle that has crawled out of its shell, tick tock Murdoch, TICK....TOCK.

  27. Advertisers dont want to be associated with... by BeCre8iv · · Score: 4, Informative

    Journos that would hack the voicemail of a child murder victim.

    --
    This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
  28. Re:Grammar nazi fail^2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are wrong, and so is the Grammatist, and so are pretty much all modern 'authorities.' While American dialects certainly are a reality, Daniel Websters efforts to fabricate and promote a 'standard' dialect were poisonously flawed and the result is the nonsense you see in the Grammatist.

    What they and you keep forgetting is that 'percent' is not an actual English word, it is a *misreading* of an abbreviation. It's like the South African in the US who asked for the 25 labs bag - not recognizing lbs. as an abbreviation for pounds. He thought it was an awfully strange abbreviation for pounds when he found out!

    But of course it's not actually an abbreviation for pounds. It's Latin, not English; well it's mangled Latin at least - lb is the proper abbreviation for both pound and pounds in Latin, but in the US we still like to tack that s on the end just to show off our ignorance. It's a very old custom in English - to write the Latin for certain phrases, but still pronounce the English.

    And in the same vein we commonly substitute the Latin per centum or an abbreviation thereof where it should probably still be read with an English equivelant. So we would write '54 per cent.' and read '54 of 100' or write '100 per cent.' and read 'all.' But then, kind of like that South African in the US, a few generations of Americans encountered the phrase in writing, without having ever heard it spoken first, and understandably misunderstanding a relatively arcane aspect of the literary language, mistook this latin abbreviation 'per cent. ' for an actual English word, 'percent.' And for entirely political reasons Daniel Webster and others encouraged such mangling.

    It's still no more correct than saying 'lab' instead of 'pound.'

  29. Paywalls by Zarath · · Score: 2

    I'm surprised no one else pointed out, but this coincides directly with the timing of their paywalls. The paywalls on Murdoch's sites went up early 2013. TFA says that it's primarily a drop in advertising revenue, so is this proof that paywalls result in a loss of money, due to a loss of advertising incoming. I know personally I have stopped visiting the Courier Mail website due to the paywall.

    1. Re:Paywalls by Zanadou · · Score: 1

      Add the following rule to AdBlockPlus:

      ||fairfax.com.au^

      Result: no more paywall for all Fairfax sites. The paywall's not terribly sophisticated.

  30. Are all comments on here this atrocious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I haven't visited /. for years as I moved away from technology however I saw this in my newsfeed and gave it a look.

    What happened to the site which used to have one of the most decent commentary sections on the Internet?

    Left, right or other didn't used to matter, the facts would be laid out and debated intelligently, it would have never been reduced to this sort of bickering, troll bait comments that are full of lies.

    Such a shame this place has been reduced to just another site full of the same.

    (Wonder what number the user id's are up to now? 5 digits+?)

    1. Re:Are all comments on here this atrocious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Left, right or other didn't used to matter, the facts would be laid out and debated intelligently, it would have never been reduced to this sort of bickering, troll bait comments that are full of lies.

      Beta happened. The writing was on the wall before that.

      Many stories are basically of the 'slut shaming' and 'internet crusaders' type now. I get more interesting tech news off hack a day. Even the other 'sister' site is barely better. As many of the 'stories' are just cross posted now.

  31. BS by s.petry · · Score: 1

    But this whole notion that they're some sort of evil empire secretly controlling peoples minds? It's a joke...

    Willful ignorance, got it. Controlling media to shape society by providing fabricated opinion is not new. Adam Weishaupt wrote all about this technique back in the late 1700s for exactly the purpose of controlling Governments by controlling citizen opinions. If you are trying to claim that media is public therefor can't be secret, you should really try harder to understand that the opinions and fact that they are used to shape society is what is "secret". You can read documents from the CFR to see directions, but the fact that Fox repeats mantras handed to them by controllers is not visible.

    they're an entertainment company that tells a certain group of people what they want to hear.

    While surely the masses play a part in hiding in the cave, the problem stems from the fact that the word "NEWS" was hijacked. People tried to sue FOX for fabricating stories and claiming was "news" and courts ruled that "News" is "entertainment". Simply reading a dictionary would dispel any such notion, but corruption is well beyond "News" agencies and has infested every portion of our Government to include the Judicial system.

    Note that the people did not sue Fox for creating entertainment, they sued them for intentionally misleading the public by falsely claiming that their "entertainment" was "factual news".

    Sure, the blame is separate and distinct but if you are never told that "News" has become fabricated entertainment how do you know to look for the false claims? Simply put, you don't.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  32. Oh please please let it happen by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    That this impacts Fox news in the United States. Hopefully it won't touch the entertainment side as a few shows I like are in fact Fox Network properties.

    1. Re:Oh please please let it happen by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Nah, FOX News is safe. It's a cash cow anyhow, they use it to prop up the newspapers and such that lose money.

  33. Democrats are trying to kill the poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because the Democrats hate black people and are trying to get them to sterilize themselves through planned parenthood. Faux doesn't report this and only tries to look like it is not as much in bed with the Democrat party as CNN and MSNBC

  34. Re:Mods, mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gina Rinehart doesn't read newspapers.

    She owns the TV stations, don't you know?