A point worth repeating

One other note that I think is worth mentioning: Rupert Murdoch gets a lot of cr*p for being the poster child of destructive corporatization of media. In this story, he was the single largest investor in Theranos with $125 million of his money in the company. He was one of the older men who fell totally for Holmes. But when Holmes came to him several times asking him to shut down an out of control reporter at Murdoch-owned WSJ, Murdoch said no, despite the fact that this reporting would eventually make Murdoch’s $125 million investment worthless.

11 thoughts on “A point worth repeating”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    Murdoch is a newspaper man. He is the son of a newspaper man. For years he has run newspapers at a loss because he loves newspapers and thinks that people should have good ones.

    Even so I am a bit surprised by that. Should have put him in the House of Lords.

  2. Good on him.

    Though remember we are talking about <1% of his net worth. Would you sell your reputation for a few grand?

  3. Its a reasonable principle to follow that anyone who is demonised by the Left is actually a fairly decent human being, and anyone lionised by them is a total cunt. It may not hold true 100% of the time, but if you’re a betting man its the way to go.

  4. I will second your proposal for him to go into the house of lords.

    Having a second house composed of people who are immune/indifferent to popular opinion creates a properly diverse review of legislation. Having the people who sucked hardest creates entirely the wrong filter.

  5. Presumably Murdoch was at least savvy enough to understand that if the reporter was correct the story would eventually come out whether he try to quash it or not, and that his quashing would also come out to the detriment of the WSJ’s reputation.

  6. He’s been a legal Yank for a long time now. I don’t think we ennoble Yanks, and from a historical perspective, I would expect them to be grievously insulted by the very notion.

    isp: You are right. There are far too many political has-been troughers there. ‘Lord Moat’, as Guido calls him, is a classic example. Many more on the other benches, courtesy of Blair. There was, supposedly, a process to widen the pool from which prospective lords (in the gender-neutral sense) are chosen, but it seems to have made little difference. How do you select ‘worthy’ candidates without bias or patronage? And bounce out the duffers and the ones with loony agendas (or any agenda for that matter)?

  7. @Jim, June 19, 2018 at 2:04 pm

    +1 Trust of Left, even by those on Left is low. Guardian sales/circulation a good example.

    They lack morals, standards and integrity.

  8. I too read ‘Bad Blood’ and recommend it.
    Holmes is despicable. Unlike other financial frauds, where only money was lost, her fraud risked the lives of the people who relied on her defective blood tests.

  9. On fast blood tests: why don’t NHS, GPs just use what vets have been using for >20 years?

    In surgery, vet takes sample, nurse vanishes, vet examines more, nurse returns with results print-out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *