Bahrain
Kuwait
Oman
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
UAE
Print
Email
Discuss this article (3 Comments)Power play
by This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it on Thursday, 01 October 2009
Is there a man on the planet more powerful than Rupert Murdoch? Sure, there are heads of state around the world who might claim to be, and some might be, but certainly in English speaking or European countries no one influences the people those heads of state are answerable to more than Murdoch does.
His media empire reads like a roll call of the world’s most popular newspapers, websites and television stations. And he is certainly not afraid to use them to political ends.
On the day that Arabian Business went to print, Murdoch, 78, was at it again: king-making. He has switched the allegiance of his newspaper The Sun, Britain’s most popular daily, from the socialist New Labour party, which has been in power now for twelve years, to the right wing Conservative party. Based on a forty year track record of Murdoch-endorsed candidates being elected all around the world no one but the most one-eyed of left wing optimists would bet on Labour now winning the next election.
While the scope of Murdoch’s influence is massive, it could be argued that he has little in the way of sway in this part of the world. Rulers throughout the Gulf and wider Middle East certainly do not need to court the favour of this naturalised American in the same way that, say, Tony Blair or Kevin Rudd or even Barack Obama did (Obama went down on bended knee to Murdoch before the Presidential election to plead for less savage coverage at the hands of Murdoch’s Fox network – up to that point he was being portrayed as little more than an Islamic terrorist).
Murdoch’s Sky News may be beamed across the world, including throughout the Middle East, and newswire Dow Jones may have reporters from Lebanon to Cairo to Yemen and everywhere in between, but these are ostensibly impartial news services. He owns no newspapers in the Middle East – newspapers that might editorialise in the same way that the New York Post, the News of the World or The Australian might.
But surely the effect of Rupert Murdoch’s influence on Middle Eastern countries is felt through the role he plays in shaping the foreign policies of those countries in which his power is greatest.
It is salutary to note that ahead of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, all 175 Murdoch-owned papers editorialised in favour of the war. Indeed, without his support, or the support of the opinion forming news outlets he owns, the war may never have gone ahead.
How different the world might look today had it not – and how amazing, if you accept that Murdoch had a massive role in ‘selling’ the war to the citizens of many of the countries who took part in it, it is to consider that Murdoch is answerable to almost no one.
Likewise, Murdoch’s influence on the price of oil is not inconsiderable. Opec sets the price, of course, but the volume with which heads of state in non-Opec nations moan about is directly related to the perceived annoyance or outrage of the citizens of those countries. High prices at the pumps in Europe and America lead to massive unrest.
Murdoch’s papers can quell this unrest, or exacerbate it – they can also shape the energy related diplomacy between Opec and non-Opec countries. Outrage in the Press can become outrage at the negotiating table.
Blair had Murdoch on speed dial. So does Germany’s Angela Merkel – purportedly the world’s most powerful woman. When David Cameron becomes Prime Minister of Britain, one of the Gulf countries’ biggest trading partners and political allies, he will owe a debt of gratitude (for starters) to Murdoch. How will the Conservative government of Cameron’s policy towards Gulf countries differ from the New Labour government’s? We will soon see.
Damian Reilly is the editor of Arabian Business English.
READERS' COMMENTS
Disclaimer: The views expressed here by our readers are not necessarily shared by ArabianBusiness.com or its employees.
The Sun not won it
Posted by Sam the Sham on Thursday 1 October 2009 at 23:48 UAE time
You say: "Murdoch’s influence on the price of oil is not inconsiderable."
What??? Do your sums, Daimo. OPEC only accounts for about 30 per cent of global production and there isn't much unity amongst members. Other, non-OPEC members have their own agendas. Let's see Murdoch try to influence them. C'mon, you're supposed to be a business journalist. Do you know anything about the oil business?
You say: "Murdoch’s Sky News may be beamed across the world, including throughout the Middle East."
Like hell it is. A few westerners in Dubai might watch it, but do you think anyone else does? Have you seen their figures? Obviously not.
And as for Dow Jones? Do you think it is competing with the likes of Reuters for Middle East coverage? Get out of your Dubai bubble. When's the last time you paid any attention to proper Middle Eastern media coverage? Like the Al Jazeeras, the Al Arabias, the Al Quds etc. I bet you think Fox is popular in the Middle East too.
Then you attempt to cite the influence of The Australian and the New York Post, but you obviously don't know that neither paper has much market share in the key demographics in their respective countries. The Post falls behind even the New York Daily News in NY, which is also a tabloid, while The Australian barely figures at all in the big Aussie population centres where the vast majority of voters live.
Do I have to write this article for you, Damian?
You think Murdoch "sold the war"? Do you know how much it cost different NI entities to cover the war, compared to what the return on it was? Obviously not.
You seem to be under some naive assumption that it was like CNN during 1991. Well, it wasn't because CNN ran the Baghdad operation on a shoestring.
You say: "It is salutary to note that ahead of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, all 175 Murdoch-owned papers editorialised in favour of the war. Indeed, without his support, or the support of the opinion forming news outlets he owns, the war may never have gone ahead."
C'mon son. Wake up. It almost didn't go ahead. It almost caused the UK goverment to collapse after ministerial resignations, a cross party revolt, over a million people on the streets of the UK alone, no backing from any other major European armies (unless you count small contingents of soldiers from Spain, Korea, Australia and Italy), the UN Security Council or the UN General Assembly, major disagreements amongst intel divisions in many UN members about the WMDs and much less than half the troops the US required.
Several big news organisations, including some belonging to NI exposed the 'evidence' of WMDs in Iraq as being years out of date in one notorious case, contradictory in others and from high questionable sources in many other cases. It was those reports which led to tens of millions of people protesting against the war in countries where NI entities had a sizeable presence.
So much for Murdoch's influence, Damian.
So, how did you come to the conclusion that he virtually called the war? Where did you get that idea?
You say: "Blair had Murdoch on speed dial."
He also had Greg Dyke, the BBC's boss and we all know what happened there, don't we?
By the way, I'm sure you also know that the BBC is still the world's largest news organisation, don't you? Yes, even though it is owned by the British government, it still had many high profile run-ins with the British and US govts over Iraq.
You think Murdoch is answerable to almost no one? You don't seem to know a lot about modern media, do you?
It should also be pointed out that it is only the English Sun that is backing Cameron. The Scottish Sun is still backing Brown.
Murdoch owns both. Go figure.
Posted by Sam the Sham on Thursday 1 October 2009 at 23:48 UAE time
You say: "Murdoch’s influence on the price of oil is not inconsiderable."
What??? Do your sums, Daimo. OPEC only accounts for about 30 per cent of global production and there isn't much unity amongst members. Other, non-OPEC members have their own agendas. Let's see Murdoch try to influence them. C'mon, you're supposed to be a business journalist. Do you know anything about the oil business?
You say: "Murdoch’s Sky News may be beamed across the world, including throughout the Middle East."
Like hell it is. A few westerners in Dubai might watch it, but do you think anyone else does? Have you seen their figures? Obviously not.
And as for Dow Jones? Do you think it is competing with the likes of Reuters for Middle East coverage? Get out of your Dubai bubble. When's the last time you paid any attention to proper Middle Eastern media coverage? Like the Al Jazeeras, the Al Arabias, the Al Quds etc. I bet you think Fox is popular in the Middle East too.
Then you attempt to cite the influence of The Australian and the New York Post, but you obviously don't know that neither paper has much market share in the key demographics in their respective countries. The Post falls behind even the New York Daily News in NY, which is also a tabloid, while The Australian barely figures at all in the big Aussie population centres where the vast majority of voters live.
Do I have to write this article for you, Damian?
You think Murdoch "sold the war"? Do you know how much it cost different NI entities to cover the war, compared to what the return on it was? Obviously not.
You seem to be under some naive assumption that it was like CNN during 1991. Well, it wasn't because CNN ran the Baghdad operation on a shoestring.
You say: "It is salutary to note that ahead of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, all 175 Murdoch-owned papers editorialised in favour of the war. Indeed, without his support, or the support of the opinion forming news outlets he owns, the war may never have gone ahead."
C'mon son. Wake up. It almost didn't go ahead. It almost caused the UK goverment to collapse after ministerial resignations, a cross party revolt, over a million people on the streets of the UK alone, no backing from any other major European armies (unless you count small contingents of soldiers from Spain, Korea, Australia and Italy), the UN Security Council or the UN General Assembly, major disagreements amongst intel divisions in many UN members about the WMDs and much less than half the troops the US required.
Several big news organisations, including some belonging to NI exposed the 'evidence' of WMDs in Iraq as being years out of date in one notorious case, contradictory in others and from high questionable sources in many other cases. It was those reports which led to tens of millions of people protesting against the war in countries where NI entities had a sizeable presence.
So much for Murdoch's influence, Damian.
So, how did you come to the conclusion that he virtually called the war? Where did you get that idea?
You say: "Blair had Murdoch on speed dial."
He also had Greg Dyke, the BBC's boss and we all know what happened there, don't we?
By the way, I'm sure you also know that the BBC is still the world's largest news organisation, don't you? Yes, even though it is owned by the British government, it still had many high profile run-ins with the British and US govts over Iraq.
You think Murdoch is answerable to almost no one? You don't seem to know a lot about modern media, do you?
It should also be pointed out that it is only the English Sun that is backing Cameron. The Scottish Sun is still backing Brown.
Murdoch owns both. Go figure.
Hang on...
Posted by Doug, Dubai on Thursday 1 October 2009 at 16:28 UAE time
"When David Cameron becomes Prime Minister of Britain....." Hang on sunshine, let's wait until we have an election first, shall we? In any case, it won't be 'the Sun wot won it' anyway. Everyone knows that the way the Sun 'wins' elections for politicians is that Murdoch simply makes a judgement call about who's most likely to win - and then supports them because it's politically expedient to do so.
The British general election isn't decided by the largely illiterate readership of the Sun. Have you perhaps forgotten how democracy works?
Posted by Doug, Dubai on Thursday 1 October 2009 at 16:28 UAE time
"When David Cameron becomes Prime Minister of Britain....." Hang on sunshine, let's wait until we have an election first, shall we? In any case, it won't be 'the Sun wot won it' anyway. Everyone knows that the way the Sun 'wins' elections for politicians is that Murdoch simply makes a judgement call about who's most likely to win - and then supports them because it's politically expedient to do so.
The British general election isn't decided by the largely illiterate readership of the Sun. Have you perhaps forgotten how democracy works?
Murdoch isn't so powerful now
Posted by Jon K., Dubai, UAE on Thursday 1 October 2009 at 14:54 UAE time
If this op-ed piece had been written in 1980 or 1990 the writer's argument may hold. Now however Murdoch isn't even remotely as powerful as what he once was and the notion that he could have a say in a country's energy policy is totally absurd.
The internet has changed the playing field in regards to media manipulation. Sites such as Twitter and blogs like the Huffington Post are now far more effective tools in which to spread your message than a newspaper.
The negative press Obama got from Fox et al only galvanised his supporters even further as they communicated amongst themselves on Twitter etc.
Posted by Jon K., Dubai, UAE on Thursday 1 October 2009 at 14:54 UAE time
If this op-ed piece had been written in 1980 or 1990 the writer's argument may hold. Now however Murdoch isn't even remotely as powerful as what he once was and the notion that he could have a say in a country's energy policy is totally absurd.
The internet has changed the playing field in regards to media manipulation. Sites such as Twitter and blogs like the Huffington Post are now far more effective tools in which to spread your message than a newspaper.
The negative press Obama got from Fox et al only galvanised his supporters even further as they communicated amongst themselves on Twitter etc.
Click here to post a comment
MORE FROM ARABIANBUSINESS.COM
TOP IN MIDDLE EAST POLITICS & ECONOMICS
TOP MIDDLE EAST BUSINESS STORIES
ALSO IN MIDDLE EAST POLITICS & ECONOMICS
From 
Mobile
