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

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."

Comments

Rupert Murdoch Streisand

[Dutchmaan]

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

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand

[Presto Vivace]

News Corp is a corrupt corporation.

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand

[QRDeNameland]

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

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand

[QRDeNameland]

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

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand

[Charliemopps]

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.

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand

[crafty.munchkin]

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

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand

[DeathElk]

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.

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand

[MobSwatter]

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

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand

[rtb61]

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.

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand

[cryptolemur]

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...

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand

[NoImNotNineVolt]

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.

Not Unexpected

[TranquilVoid]

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.

Good!

[GrahamCox]

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

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

Re:Odd...

[viperidaenz]

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

That way it's all just funny money.

Re:New for Nerds?

[WillKemp]

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.

Re:New for Nerds?

[godel_56]

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. :-(

This is an effect of the News Corp restructure

[Harlequin80]

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.

Re:New for Nerds?

[WillKemp]

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.

Advertisers dont want to be associated with...

[BeCre8iv]

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