Rupert Murdoch is officially engaged to former police chaplain Ann Lesley Smith.
They locked in the engagement on St. Patrick’s Day, with the Murdoch announcing the big news in his newspaper,theNew York Post, in an interview on Monday.
The media mogul felt “very nervous” to pop the question to Smith, stating to the New York Post: “I dreaded falling in love — but I knew this would be my last,” he divulged to the publication. “It better be. I’m happy.”
Murdoch, 96, has been steadily seeing his fiancée, 66, since September last year, just one month after he officially sealed his divorce from supermodel Jerry Hall in August.
Who will Rupert Murdoch exile from the Fox kingdom?
The Fox Corporation chairman is facing an ever-deepening scandal that threatens to cause considerable financial and reputational damage to the crown jewel of his media empire, Fox News, as well as the parent company he leads. The scandal, exposed by Dominion Voting Systems’ blockbuster $1.6 billion lawsuit, has unearthed damning information, revealing the right-wing talk channel, driven by financial interests, was willing to lie to its viewers.
The stunning levels of misconduct exposed in recent weeks raise questions about the future of Suzanne Scott, the embattled chief executive of Fox News. Will she be Murdoch’s sacrificial lamb? No moves are currently on the immediate horizon, CNN is told. But it’s certainly possible — perhaps even likely — that Murdoch might cancel her in an attempt to save himself and his legacy.
The Murdochs “are certainly setting Suzanne Scott up to take the fall for this,” Ben Smith, the Semafor editor-in-chief who writes a Sunday night media column, said Wednesday.
“They’re leaving a trail of crumbs that lead back to her office,” added David Folkenflik, the NPR media correspondent and Murdoch biographer.
There is no shortage of evidence to support the notion Scott is on the chopping block. Most notably, during his deposition, Murdoch sought to distance himself from decision making at Fox News. Instead, he pointed to Scott: “I appointed Ms. Scott to the job … and I delegate everything to her,” he said. In doing so, Murdoch made the case that Scott is in charge of the network — and if there was wrongdoing, it rests on her shoulders. Of course, astute media observers know that Murdoch is the person actually calling the shots. But it’s not hard to see how the company could advance this narrative.
This is not the first time that Murdoch has been faced with a serious and embarrassing matter in his media empire. In 2011, his now-defunct News of the World newspaper was ensnared in a phone hacking scandal. In 2016, Fox News founder Roger Ailes was accused in an explosive lawsuit of sexual harassment. And in 2017, star host Bill O’Reilly was caught in his own sexual misconduct scandal.
In each case, Murdoch made the decision to sever ties with top personnel. As one source who once worked in Murdoch-world said Wednesday, “His pattern has been to throw some money overboard and offer a head or two in the process to make it go away.” And cutting ties with Scott would appear to be one of the easier ousters for Murdoch to execute over the course of his decades at the helm of one of the world’s biggest media empires.
“Looking back to previous scandals, Murdoch and the companies have tended to try to pay early and quietly to make things go away, or they ignore them thinking they’re so big they can ride things out,” Folkenflik said. “And then when things really come to a head, they try to cauterize the wound at the lowest level possible.”
“If he threw [Scott] over, he would only do it because he thought he needed to cauterize the wound before it goes higher,” Folkenflik added. “That’s his record. That’s what he does. It can be editors. It can be executives. It can be stars. He’s not throwing himself over the side.”
Jim Rutenberg, the former media columnist at The New York Times who has an extensive history covering Murdoch, echoed that sentiment.
“Murdoch has a history of sacrificing loyal lieutenants, but he does it only in the most extreme circumstances,” Rutenberg said. “We know that he hates doing it. We know that he tends to try to fight for his loyalists, even for Ailes, certainly for O’Reilly. But when it’s a necessity to overcome a real threat to his business, he’ll do it.”
Whether the circumstances have reached a boiling point yet are unclear. The Dominion lawsuit, which has already caused massive reputational damage to the Fox News brand, is still in the pre-trial phase of the case. There’s no telling what could emerge from a weeks-long trial in which prominent executives and hosts such as Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity are called to the stand. And it remains to be seen whether outside forces, such as potential shareholder lawsuits, come into play and exert added pressure on Murdoch to take action.
Regardless, it’s worth noting that Murdoch himself has signaled that firings could be coming. When asked in his deposition whether Fox News executives who knowingly allowed “lies to be broadcast” should face consequences, Murdoch responded in the affirmative: “They should be reprimanded,” he said. “They should be reprimanded, maybe got rid of.”
As Folkenflik noted, “If you’re Rupert, you can’t fire Rupert. And you’re not going to fire [Fox CEO] Lachlan [Murdoch] either. So who are you going to chop?”
“Everyone who takes a senior executive position under Rupert Murdoch knows that is the case, that is the ultimate fall position,” Folkenflik explained. “They understand that’s part of the job. You’re very well paid. It can be a somewhat glamorous life. If you fall out of favor with the sun king, or it is to his benefit, that’s part of the equation.”
We’ll see what Scott’s fate ultimately looks like. For now, Fox is not offering any public statement of support for her. When I reached out to Fox spokespeople on Wednesday asking for comment, the company declined.
If keeping close tabs on the interpersonal relationships of billionaires whom society would objectively be better off without is one of your hobbies, you likely know that things between Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch have been tense for some time now, thanks to Murdoch’s decisions to bury Trump’s 2020 election dreams in a shallow grave and subsequently dump the ex-president for a younger model. Before all that, though, the two enjoyed a robust alliance in which Fox News basically served as state TV during the Trump administration years. And, as we learned late last night, the Australian media mogul was willing to go to great, wildly unethical lengths to keep Trump in power until the very end.
According to a new court filing from Dominion Voting Systems—which is currently suing Fox News for $1.6 billion—in 2020, Murdoch gave Jared Kushner, then the first son-in-law and an adviser to the president, “confidential information about [President Joe] Biden’s ads, along with debate strategy…providing Kushner a preview of Biden’s ads before they were public.” It’s not clear which ads Murdoch passed on (or what debate strategy he offered), but as The Washington Post’s Philip Bumpnotes, the heads-up would have undoubtedly been much appreciated:
Campaigns do opposition research on their own candidates to get a sense of what attacks are coming and to prepare for them. Now imagine if they knew with certainty what attacks were coming because the friendly chairman of a right-wing media organization was tipping you off.
Given the way Fox treated Trump while he was in office—like he was the network’s lord and savior, and like its pundits had pledged a blood oath to him in the basement of its Sixth Avenue offices—the company’s owner having shared confidential information with Kushner probably seems neither shocking nor even that bad on the scale of all the bad things the network has done. As a reminder, though, the organization in question purports to be in the “news” business. In fact, once upon a time, it unironically made “Fair and Balanced” its motto (though that was dropped in 2017 because…c’mon). Which is quite rich given that, as Bump also notes, Fox pretty much stood on its own when it came to basically serving as a wing of both the Trump campaign and the Republican Party:
In both the most recent and earlier filings from Dominion, Murdoch is quoted as advocating explicitly for his charges to help boost Republicans. “[W]e should concentrate on Georgia, helping any way we can,” Murdoch wrote to his team in the days before the runoff Senate races in that state—meaning, obviously, that they should help the Republicans win. In the new filing, he’s quoted as writing to the head of Fox News that “we must tell our viewers again and again what they will get” with tax legislation proposed by Trump. He was advocating for acting in service to Trump and Trump’s politics.
Contrast this with other cable news channels. In 2010, MSNBC suspended host Joe Scarborough for having made small political contributions several years prior. “[I]t is critical that we enforce our standards and policies,” the network’s then president, Phil Griffin, said in a statement. Fox News hosts, on the other hand, host Republican fundraising dinners and speak at political rallies. The difference is stark.
Murdoch obviously isn’t going to suspend himself, but unfortunately for Trump, he’s probably also unlikely to provide the same kind of support in 2024.* As we learned back in 2021, it was ole Rupert who gave the greenlight to call Arizona for Biden, reportedly telling his son, of Trump: “F–k him.” While Fox has denied this, the most recently released Dominion filing suggests Team Trump indeed received a chilly reception from the Aussie at the top. During his under-oath deposition, Murdoch said that Kushner called him on election night about the network’s coverage and, with Trump in the background “shouting,” told him, “This is terrible.” Murdoch’s response? “Well, the numbers are the numbers.”
*Unless Trump wins the GOP nomination—then, yeah, Fox will undoubtedly do everything it can to get him elected.
The leaks provided Kushner with “a preview of Biden’s ads before they were public,” according to court documents released Monday as part of the $1.6 billion defamation suit by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News.
“During Trump’s campaign, Rupert provided Trump’s son-in-law and senior advisor, Jared Kushner, with Fox confidential information about Biden’s ads, along with debate strategy,” read the filing.
It’s unclear exactly how Murdoch assisted with “debate strategy.”
Dominion is suing Fox News over the unfounded claims pushed by several of the network’s hosts that the company’s voting machines were used to flip the election in favor of Biden.
Elsewhere in the filing, Murdoch acknowledged Fox News hosts “endorsed” conspiracy theories about Donald Trump winning the 2020 election.
Critics described the Murdoch-Kushner news as a “bombshell.”
“These actions by Rupert Murdoch seem illegal,” said Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.). “At the very least, it would appear to be a campaign contribution of significant value, well over federal campaign limits.”
“Trump falsely accused Biden of ‘spying on his campaign,’” commented the progressive PAC MeidasTouch. “Today, it was revealed that Trump and Fox News colluded to *actually* spy on Biden’s campaign. Every accusation is always a confession.”
Fox has repeatedly defended itself amid the lawsuit, claiming it is “more about what will generate headlines than what can withstand legal and factual scrutiny.”
Rupert Murdoch gave Jared Kushner access to Biden’s TV spots before they were public…pretty hefty in-kind campaign contribution there. https://t.co/IMZLrgYGEn
These actions by Rupert Murdoch seem illegal. At the very least, it would appear to be a campaign contribution of significant value, well over federal campaign limits. https://t.co/Mb92DUGoAZ
Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of Fox Corporation, acknowledged in a deposition taken by Dominion Voting Systems that some Fox News hosts endorsed false claims that the 2020 election was stolen.
Murdoch’s remarks in a deposition were made public in a legal filing as part of Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion lawsuit against Fox News.
“Some of our commentators were endorsing it,” Murdoch said, singling out Fox hosts Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo and Jeanine Pirro as Fox hosts who promoted the false stolen election claims on air, according to a transcript of his deposition. Murdoch acknowledged the hosts frequently invited guests who made similar claims.
But Murdoch pushed back against Dominion’s lawyers who claimed that Fox was endorsing “this false notion of a stolen election?”
“Not Fox. But maybe Lou Dobbs, maybe Maria, as commentators,” Murdoch said in his deposition.
In another filing made public earlier this month, a trove of messages and emails from the most prominent stars and highest-ranking executives at Fox News showed they had privately ridiculed claims of election fraud in the 2020 election, despite the right-wing channel promoting lies about the presidential contest on its air.
The messages showed that Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham brutally mocked lies being pushed by former President Donald Trump’s camp asserting that the election was rigged.
The court filings have offered the most vivid picture to date of the chaos that transpired behind the scenes at Fox News after Trump lost the election and viewers rebelled against the right-wing channel for accurately calling the contest in Biden’s favor.
Fox News has not only vigorously denied Dominion’s claims, it has insisted it is “proud” of its 2020 election coverage.
The network argued that the court filing contained cherry-picked quotes lacking context.
“There will be a lot of noise and confusion generated by Dominion and their opportunistic private equity owners, but the core of this case remains about freedom of the press and freedom of speech, which are fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution and protected by New York Times v. Sullivan,” Fox News said in a statement.
A person walks past Fox News Headquarters at the News Corporation building on May 03, 2022 in New York City.
Alexi Rosenfeld | Getty Images
Rupert Murdoch and Fox News hosts expressed disbelief in former President Donald Trump’s false election fraud claims, according to evidence released from Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion lawsuit against Fox Corp and its cable-TV networks.
In court papers filed Thursday, text messages and testimony from depositions show that Fox executives and TV personalities were skeptical about claims that the election between the victorious Joe Biden, a Democrat, and Trump, a Republican.
The release follows months of discovery and depositions that have remained private until Thursday, when the companies filed court papers before a Delaware judge laying out each of their cases and unveiling recently gathered evidence.
Dominion brought the defamation lawsuit against Fox and its right wing cable networks, Fox News and Fox Business, arguing the networks and its anchors made false claims that its voting machines rigged the results of the 2020 election.
“Really crazy stuff. And damaging,” Fox Corp Chairman Rupert Murdoch said in an email on Nov. 19, days after the election, regarding claims Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani was making on Fox News.
Top Fox News anchors like Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham expressed disbelief in what Sydney Powell, a pro-Trump attorney who had aggressively promoted claims of election fraud, had said at the time, too.
Rudolph Giuliani and Sidney Powell, attorneys for President Donald Trump, conduct a news conference at the Republican National Committee on lawsuits regarding the outcome of the 2020 presidential election on Thursday, November 19, 2020.
Tom Williams | CQ-Roll Call, Inc. | Getty Images
“Sydney Powell is lying,” Tucker Carlson said in a text message to his producer. Meanwhile Laura Ingraham said in a message to Carlson: “Sidney is a complete nut. No one will work with her. Ditto with Rudy.”
“It’s unbelievably offensive to me. Our viewers are good people and they believe it,” Carlson responded, according to court papers. These messages came in the weeks following the election.
Dominion said in court papers that Fox admitted that Hannity and Lou Dobbs’ shows did not “challenge the narrative” that Dominion was responsible for rigging the election or producing inaccurate results.
On Thursday, both Fox Corp and Fox News also filed their own motions for summary judgment. Fox Corp, which saw its push to have the case dismissed denied by the court, said in court papers that following a year of discovery, the record in the case shows it had “no role in the creation and publication of the challenged statements – all of which aired on either Fox Business Network or Fox News Channel.”
In recent months Murdoch, as well as his son Lachlan Murdoch, the Fox Corp CEO, faced depositions as part of the lawsuit.
Fox News said once again in court papers that it “fulfilled its commitment to inform fully and comment fairly,” on the claims that Dominion rigged the election against Trump.
“There will be a lot of noise and confusion generated by Dominion and their opportunistic private equity owners, but the core of this case remains about freedom of the press and freedom of speech, which are fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution and protected by New York Times v. Sullivan,” Fox said in a statement issued Thursday.
A Dominion spokesperson didn’t comment and its private-equity owner, Staple Street Capital, didn’t respond to comment.
“Here, however, overwhelming direct evidence establishes Fox’s knowledge of falsity, not just ‘doubts,’” Dominion said in court papers Thursday, pointing to multiple defamatory statements.
Dominion pointed to the audience backlash Fox News faced on the 2020 election night when it called Arizona for Joe Biden, later seeing competing right wing networks like Newsmax take advantage of the opening with the audience.
Dominion’s findings point to hosts including Carlson, Ingraham and Sean Hannity understanding “the threat to them personally.” Dominion points to messages Carlson sent to his producer on Nov. 5, “We worked really hard to build what we have. Those f—-ers are destroying our credibility. It enrages me.”
The case is being watched closely by First Amendment watchdogs and experts. Libel lawsuits are typically centered around one falsehood. In this case Dominion cites a lengthy list of examples of Fox TV hosts making false claims even after they were proven to be untrue. Media companies are often broadly protected by the First Amendment.
These cases are typically settled out of court or dismissed. But the Delaware judge overseeing the case has dismissed such requests. The trial is slated to begin in mid-April.
Last week, during a status conference, Dominion’s attorney called out concerns that some evidence, such as board meeting minutes and the results of searches of personal drives, had yet to be produced by Fox and its TV networks.
Rupert Murdoch has pulled the plug on a proposal to bring back together his News Corp. and Fox Corp., saying the merger isn’t coming at the right time for shareholders.
In similar statements Tuesday, the companies said their boards received letters from Murdoch withdrawing the plan.
“Mr. Murdoch indicated that he and (son and Fox Corp. chief executive) Lachlan K. Murdoch have determined that a combination is not optimal for shareholders of News Corp. and FOX at this time,” the statements said.
The elder Murdoch first floated merging News Corp. — which owns The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, The Sun and The Times in the U.K., and book publisher HarperCollins — and Fox Corp. that controls Fox News, Fox Sports and local TV stations, in October, according to regulatory filings.
The media mogul had sent letters to the companies’ boards, which formed committees to look into a possible merger.
News Corp. started as one company but split into two in 2013: 21st Century Fox with the entertainment assets and News Corp. with publishing and media assets, including The Wall Street Journal and HarperCollins.
The Murdoch family controls both corporations but had spun off the Fox properties into a separate company after selling a large part of the Fox entertainment empire to Walt Disney Co. for $71 billion in a deal that closed in 2019.
In premarket trading, News Corp. shares added 1.8% while Fox shares rose 3.9%.
Thanks for reading CBS NEWS.
Create your free account or log in for more features.
Licht’s confidantes and advisers must have been beaming when James Stewart’s long-awaited New York Timesprofile landed on December 18, like a warm bundle of holiday cheer. (Licht’s boss, Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav, gave the piece a hearty plug on Instagram.) After months of rough and relentless coverage that put Licht’s leadership under the lens of a high-power microscope, here was a sympathetic portrait from a titan of the business pages. Nevertheless, it’s too early to tell whether Licht and his lieutenants can continue to flip the narrative. CNN brought the curtain down on 2022 with a painful culling that put hundreds out of work. Annual profits, as Stewart noted, have fallen by $500 million. The network’s big streaming plans imploded. Its ratings leave a lump in the throat. All of which suggests that Licht has his work cut out for him. His to-do list in the New Year includes locking in a prime-time lineup that has a fighting chance of narrowing the gap with MSNBC and—more dauntingly—Fox News; gaining audience momentum for CNN’s recently rebooted flagship morning show; and winning the goodwill of employees, who saw morale tank during the rocky first eight months of Licht’s tenure.
CanThe Washington PostStave Off a Mutiny?
Last we saw Post publisher Fred Ryan, the pitchforks were out as he retreated from a room full of furious employees after he’d informed them—in spectacularly ham-fisted fashion—of looming layoffs, and then refused to take any questions. (“Democracy dies in darkness, huh?” one staffer scoffed to this publication.) The fallout was swift: Video of the disastrous town hall circulated on Twitter; a gaggle of union holdouts, including several star reporters, enlisted with their colleagues in the NewsGuild; and reports swirled hinting at friction between Ryan and the executive editor he’d appointed just last year, Sally Buzbee. The drama unfolded against a backdrop of dimming financial prospects. Digital subscriptions are reportedlydown. One presumes advertising is just as rough as it is throughout the industry. And the brass, unlike that of, say, The New York Times, haven’t exactly evinced a clear business strategy to restore the mojo. Is this the same Washington Post that enjoyed copious growth and success under the legendary newsroom reign of Marty Baron? The larger that question looms in the collective media consciousness, the more fragile Ryan’s leadership may start to seem.
WillThe New York TimesAvert a Strike?
At the time of this writing, Times leaders and their more than 1,300 employees in the NewsGuild remained at an impasse in a tense and protracted bargaining process, with the Guild reportedly rejecting a proposal to bring in a federal mediator. This latest development came on the heels of a work stoppage that left the Times, for 24 hours at least, without the firepower of a large segment of its journalistic corps. The one-day action was a significant escalation in the union’s fight for higher salaries befitting not only the realities of inflation, but the Times’ ongoing prosperity. It may not stop there. Over the past few years, the NewsGuild has expanded aggressively in membership and influence across the media, while demonstrating its willingness to resort to more hardball tactics. (“Radical” is a word I’ve heard tossed around to describe its professional leadership.) Last year, The New Yorker—which, like Vanity Fair, is owned by Condé Nast—came perilously close to a strike during its own tussle with the Guild. Which is to say, even if the prospect of Times journalists walking off the job indefinitely may seem remote, it’s hardly fanciful.
Former Theranos chief operating officer and president Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani was sentenced to nearly 13 years in prison Wednesday for fraud, after the unraveling of the blood-testing juggernaut prompted criminal charges in California federal court against both Balwani and Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes, who on Nov. 18 was sentenced to more than 11 years in prison.
During the sentencing hearing, attorneys for Balwani attempted to pin the blame on Holmes, telling U.S. District Court Judge Edward J. Davila that “decisions were made by Elizabeth Holmes.”
Davila had set a sentencing range of 11 years plus 3 months to 14 years, but prosecutors today sought a 15-year sentence given his “significant” oversight role at Theranos’ lab business.
The final guideline sentence was 155 months, plus three years of probation. Davila set a Mar. 15, 2023, surrender date.
Sunny Balwani, former president of Theranos Inc., arrives at federal court in San Jose, California, on Wednesday, Dec. 7, 2022.
David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Balwani and Holmes, former romantic partners, helmed Theranos as the company enjoyed a meteoric rise, attracting backers ranging from the DeVos family to news magnate Rupert Murdoch. It was one of Murdoch’s publications, The Wall Street Journal, that first reported on irregularities with Theranos’ purportedly revolutionary blood-testing machines.
As COO, Balwani managed both the laboratory business and the financial aspects of the company. Theranos was marred with repeated failures during his tenure, including falsified documents and erroneous test results.
“I am responsible for everything at Theranos,” Balwani said in a message to Holmes. Balwani assumed broad responsibility for day-to-day operations at the company.
Theranos claimed the machines required just a few drops of blood to run and could execute more than 1,000 tests. In reality, the Journal reported the company could only process a little over a dozen tests. The Journal’s reporting eventually prompted the company’s dissolution in 2018 and, later, the arrest of Balwani and Holmes on fraud charges.
Balwani’s sentencing in federal court marks the end of the Theranos saga, which enthralled the public and prompted documentary films and novel treatments.
With a star-studded investor list, a captivating founder who drew comparisons to Apple’s Steve Jobs, and a potentially revolutionary technology, the company for a time represented the apex of Silicon Valley ingenuity.
The revelations about Theranos brought about a stunning fall from grace for both Balwani and Holmes, who were in a relationship for much of their tenure at the company. Holmes accused Balwani of abuse in court proceedings, providing text messages and contemporaneous notes from their relationship as evidence.
“Kill the old Elizabeth,” Balwani purportedly told her.
Balwani perpetrated a “decade-long campaign of psychological abuse,” Holmes’ lawyers argued. Balwani is nearly 20 years older than Holmes, who testified that he managed the lab and financial side of the business.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes was sentenced Friday to more than 11 years in prison for fraud after deceiving investors about the purported efficacy of her company’s blood-testing technology. She was ordered to surrender on April 27.
Holmes was convicted in January in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. She cried while speaking to the court ahead of her sentencing on Friday.
“I loved Theranos. It was my life’s work,” Holmes said. “My team meant the world to me. I am devastated by my failings. I’m so so sorry. I gave everything I had to build my company.”
Her defense team argued she should face a maximum sentence of 18 months, according to court filings. Instead, she was given 135 months, which amounts to 11 years and three months, behind bars.
The Wall Street Journal first broke the story of how Theranos’ blood-testing technology was struggling to meet expectations in 2015. Whistleblowers and other witnesses came forth to provide detailed accounts of how Holmes and former operating chief Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani deceived patients, partners, investors and employees about the company’s progress and the capabilities of its technology.
Once valued at $9 billion by private investors, Theranos shut down in 2018.
“Thank you for having me. Thank you for the courtesy and respect you have shown me,” she said Friday. “I have felt deep pain for what people went through because I failed them. To investors, patients, I am sorry.”
Prosecutors sought a 15 year sentence for the pregnant 38-year-old former billionaire and Silicon Valley celebrity. In July, Balwani, who was romantically involved with Holmes years earlier, was found guilty of 12 criminal fraud charges. His sentencing is set for next month.
U.S. District Court Judge Edward Davila, who presided over Holmes’ trial, handed down the sentence.
The erstwhile billionaire had attempted to move for a new trial after a former employee appeared at her doorstep in August to speak with her. Holmes’ partner, Billy Evans, told the court that the former employee made remorseful remarks at their shared residence.
But that employee, Adam Rosendorff, told the court that his remarks were due to distress at the thought of a child spending time without their mother. The Theranos founder gave birth in July to her first child, and is expecting another.
Holmes’ sentencing comes as another young tech former billionaire icon, Sam Bankman-Fried, faces a daunting future, following the sudden collapse of his cryptocurrency exchange FTX last week. Bankman-Fried hasn’t been charged with a crime, but he’s in legal jeopardy after revelations that his company was unable to give depositors their money back because some of it was used to fund risky, losing bets.
On Thursday, the ex-president took to Truth Social to offer his thoughts on the Florida governor. After claiming that people have only moved to Florida in recent years because of the weather—“Governor Ron DeSanctimonious, an average REPUBLICAN…has the advantage of SUNSHINE”—he took his followers on a journey back to 2017. It was then, he wrote, that DeSantis came to him “in desperate shape…he was politically dead, losing in a landslide to a very good Agriculture Commissioner, Adam Putnam, who was loaded up with cash and great poll numbers. Ron had low approval, bad polls, and no money.” In other words, this bad hombre was a loser, but with Trump’s endorsement, everything changed. “When I Endorsed him,” the former guy wrote on Thursday, “it was as though…a nuclear weapon went off.” Should a person who allegedly took classified documents about another country’s nuclear secrets to his for-profit resort and private residence after leaving the White House abstain from using such a description? Probably! Did that thought ever cross Trump’s mind? Considering there’s likely just a bunch of thumbtacks, Silly Putty, and David & Buster’s receipts rolling around up there, we’re guessing not!
Twitter content
This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.
But back to DeSantis, and how Trump supposedly fished him out of the garbage disposal of political history to make him what he is today. After claiming that “by having two massive Rallies with tens of thousands of people at each one,” he was single-handedly responsible for the then gubernatorial candidate beating Democratic challenger Andrew Gillum, Trump made an…interesting announcement, saying, quite casually:
I also fixed his campaign, which had completely fallen apart. I was all in for Ron, and he beat Gillum, but after the Race, when votes were being stolen by the corrupt Election process in Broward County, and Ron was going down ten thousand votes a day, along with now-Senator Rick Scott, I sent in the FBI and the U.S. Attorneys, and the ballot theft immediately ended, just prior to them running out of the votes necessary to win. I stopped his Election from being stolen.
To be clear, that was Trump apparently suggesting that he “sent in the FBI” to ensure that DeSantis won, which many have noted warrants an investigation by the people who investigate federal crimes:
Twitter content
This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.
Elon Musk used his Twitter megaphone to appeal to “independent-minded voters” on Monday, urging them to vote Republican in Tuesday’s U.S. midterm elections. In doing so, the new CEO of Twitter stepped into a political debate that tech company executives have largely tried to stay out of — so their platforms wouldn’t be seen as favoring one side over the other.
Musk, who bought Twitter for $44 billion, has expressed political views in the past, on and off the platform. But a direct endorsement of one party over another now that he owns the platform raises questions about Twitter’s ability to remain neutral under the rule of the world’s richest man.
“Shared power curbs the worst excesses of both parties, therefore I recommend voting for a Republican Congress, given that the Presidency is Democratic,” Musk tweeted.
To independent-minded voters:
Shared power curbs the worst excesses of both parties, therefore I recommend voting for a Republican Congress, given that the Presidency is Democratic.
It’s one thing for the CEO of Wendy’s or Chick-fil-A to endorse a political party, said Jennifer Stromer-Galley, a professor at Syracuse University who studies social media and politics. It’s a whole other thing, though, for the owner of one of the world’s most high-profile information ecosystems to do so.
“These social media platforms are not just companies. It’s not just a business. It is also our digital public sphere. It’s our town square,” Stromer-Galley said. “And it feels like the public sphere is increasingly privatized and owned by these companies — and when the heads of these companies put their finger on the scale — it feels like it’s potentially skewing our democracy in harmful ways.”
Musk’s comments come as he seeks to remake the company and amid widespread concern that recent mass layoffs at the social media platform could leave the company unable to deal with hate speech, misinformation that could impact voter safety and security and actors who seek to cast doubt on the legitimate winners of elections. Though Musk has vowed not to let Twitter become a “free-for-all hellscape,” advertisers have left the platform and Musk himself has amplified misinformation.
Musk on Sunday tweeted and deleted a link to an article pushing an unfounded conspiracy theory about the attack on Paul Pelosi. The tweet from Musk, posted just three days after he took charge of the platform, raised concerns about the type of content that will be allowed on the social media site under his control.
It’s not a secret that when it comes to tech workers and executives, the political mix tends to favor the left, with a good amount of Silicon Valley libertarianism thrown in. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, for instance has donated to candidates on both sides of the political spectrum, but in recent years he’s veered more toward Democrats. Publicly he’s stayed away from pledging allegiance to either party.
But in their platform policies and content moderation, tech companies such as Facebook (now Meta), Google and even Twitter have taken great pains to appear politically neutral, even as they are routinely criticized — largely by conservatives but also by liberals — for favoring one side over the other.
“Now, you might say, look, Rupert Murdoch owns Fox News and that’s his voice amplified,” said Charles Anthony Smith, a professor of political science and law at The University of California at Irvine. “But the difference is that gets filtered through a variety of different script writers and on-air personalities and all this other sort of stuff. So it’s not really Rupert Murdoch. It may be people that agree with him on things, but it’s filtered through other voices. This is an unadulterated direct contact. So it’s an amplification that is unrivaled.”
Global feathers rustled
Musk’s tweets could also stir up trouble in global politics outside of the U.S. elections. On Sunday, the billionaire signaled willingness to explore reversing decisions blocking some accounts of Brazilian right-wing lawmakers. The nation’s electoral court last week ordered their suspension. All are supporters of Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro, who on October 30 lost his reelection bid by a narrow margin to Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Most had aired claims of election fraud.
Paulo Figueiredo Filho, a political analyst who often defends Bolsonaro on social media and is also the grandson of the military dictatorship’s final president, tweeted that Twitter has become a strict and spontaneous censor.
“Your moderators are currently being more dictatorial than our own courts!” Figueiredo wrote.
Musk responded: “I will look into this.”
The suspended accounts include that of Nikolas Ferreira, who garnered more votes in the October race than any other candidate for a seat in the Lower House. According to orders issued by the electoral authority, Ferreira’s account and most others were blocked for sharing a live video from an Argentinian digital influencer questioning the reliability of Brazil’s electronic voting system. The video was largely shared by allies of Bolsonaro, who himself has often claimed the system is susceptible to fraud, without presenting any evidence.
“Upsetting the far right and the far left equally”
Twitter’s policies, as of Monday, prohibit “manipulating or interfering in elections or other civic processes.”
In a tweet just two days after he agreed to buy Twitter in April, Musk said that for “Twitter to deserve public trust, it must be politically neutral, which effectively means upsetting the far right and the far left equally.”
And to attract the largest possible number of advertisers and users, Big Tech has tried to go this route, with varying degrees of success. For years, it managed to succeed. But the 2016 U.S. presidential elections changed online discourse, fueling the country’s increased political polarization.
In early 2016, a tech blog quoted an anonymous former Facebook contractor who said the site downplayed news that conservatives are interested in and artificially boosted liberal issues such as the “BlackLivesMatter” hashtag. The blog did not name the person, and no evidence was provided for their claim.
But in the explosive political climate that preceded the election of former President Donald Trump, the claim quickly took a life of its own. There was plenty of media coverage, as well as as inquiries from GOP lawmakers, then, later, congressional hearings on the matter. In the years since, as social media companies began to crack down on far-right accounts and conspiracy theories such as QAnon, some conservatives have come to see it as evidence of the platforms’ bias.
Musk himself is at least listening to such claims, and he’s repeatedly engaged with figures on the right and far-right who would like to see a loosening of Twitter’s misinformation and hate-speech policies.
Evidence suggests those voices are already being heard. In an October study, for instance, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania found that “Twitter gives greater visibility to politically conservative news than it does content with a liberal bent.”
Musk’s tweet garnered hundreds of thousands of likes and many retweets Monday on the day before the final votes are cast in thousands of races around the country. But in replies and retweets, many prominent (and not so prominent) Twitter personalities expressed criticism for the Tesla CEO — often poking fun at him. For Smith, that’s a sign Musk may not quite be a billionaire political kingmaker that some of his peers, like venture capitalist Peter Thiel, are aspiring to be.
“I wonder if we’re we’re having the emergence of a new type of billionaire, the ones who want to decide what happens and get credit for deciding what happens,” Smith said. “So this more like an oligarchy approach than the old school billionaires who would drop lots of money but then they didn’t want anybody to know their names.”
President Donald Trump (L) is embraced by Rupert Murdoch, Executive Chairman of News Corp, during a dinner to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the Coral Sea during WWII onboard the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum May 4, 2017 in New York.
Brendan Smialowski | AFP | Getty Images
Rupert Murdoch is exploring whether to put his media companies News Corp. and Fox Corp. back together, according to News Corp.
News Corp., which owns Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones, said Friday that it had formed a special committee of board members to consider a possible deal. A merger isn’t certain, the company added in its announcement.
Fox Corp., which was left over from the $71.3 billion Twenty-First Century Fox sale to Disney in 2019, owns right wing networks Fox News and Fox Business, which is a CNBC competitor.
A combination would allow Murdoch to consolidate leadership in his media empire and cut costs. The discussions come as the audience shrinks for both print media and cable television, as readers and viewers increasingly get their news and entertainment from social media, online news and streaming services.
The announcement will have no impact on the current operations of News Corp., CEO Robert Thomson told employees in a memo obtained by CNBC.
“I would like to stress that the special committee has not made any determination at this time, and there can be no certainty that any transaction will result from this evaluation,” he wrote.
Thomson also asked employees not to speculate about the potential deal or make any formal comments to media, shareholders or customers.
The news also comes as Fox Corp. and Fox News are facing a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems. Dominion argues that Fox News and Fox Business made false claims that its voting machines rigged the results of the 2020 presidential election between Donald Trump and Joe Biden.
CNBC has reached out to Fox and News Corp. for comment. “Neither the Company nor the Special Committee intends to comment on or disclose further developments regarding the Special Committee’s work unless and until it deems further disclosure is appropriate or required,” News Corp. said in a statement on Friday.
Murdoch, 91, split Fox and News Corp. in 2013. He is the chairman of Fox and the executive chairman of News Corp. His son Lachlan Murdoch is CEO of Fox and co-executive chairman of News Corp.
The Murdoch family has a 42% voting stake in Fox and a 39% voting stake in News Corp., according to the Journal. Fox’s market value is about $17 billion, while News Corp.’s is about $9 billion, as of Friday’s market close. Class A shares of News Corp. rose more than 3% after hours, while Fox’s Class A shares barely moved.
News Corp. also includes book publisher HarperCollins, scandal sheet the New York Post and news outlets in the U.K. and Murdoch’s native Australia. Fox’s holdings also include the Fox broadcast network, which airs “The Simpsons” and NFL games.