Quote:

---

Rupert Murdoch is the last of a breed, a breed he and his company will be responsible for killing in an act of mogulcide.

The Economist agrees that he is the last mogul and says it is time for him to go. It also says that media need a strong News Corp. There we certainly disagree. Autos don't need a strong GM. What media needs - and is getting - is disruption of its overly strong institutions. The death of the mogul in news is something to celebrate, and eulogise.

I've worked for many moguls: latter-day Hearsts (San Francisco Examiner); Robert Maxwell (New York Daily News); Murdoch (TV Guide and Delphi Internet); and the Newhouses (though I'll argue they're not very mogully because they don't fit most of these criteria).

What makes a media mogul?

• He controls his (sorry, but there are no hers here) company.

• His company controls much of a market.

• He hungers for influence in politics and society.

• He lusts for attention.

• He is narcissistic but also un-self-aware; the combination inspires endless anecdotes about his ego.

Murdoch, Maxwell, and the Hearsts, when they still managed, fit those criteria.

This is not to say that nonmoguls are necessarily better. At the vaunted Time Inc, for example, an insidious culture of task forces, insider politics, and indecision led to more corporate interference than I have seen at any company I've worked in (I'll tell those stories another day). And there's an advantage to moguls: You know who's in charge; you get decisions.

No matter. They are soon to be extinct, for many reasons. Media institutions' lock on content creation and distribution is over. The risk and cost of starting new, large-scale media properties is too great.

Control of scarcity in closed markets led to moguls' and conglomerates' consolidation; now, in an abundant economy, what used to be their assets are now their liabilities. When consolidation does occur, it'll be through private equity and hedge funds, not wealthy individuals. And, as we are seeing today, genes dilute.

Who could our post-modern news moguls be? Nick Denton, founder of the blog collective Gawker Media? Perhaps, on a smaller scale, but he can't control his market. Arianna Huffington? Only in the desire for influence. Michael Arrington? Like Huffington, his boss, he no longer controls his company. Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al aren't media companies; they're platforms (which is what media companies should be, but aren't). No, Rupert is our dodo.

I say there are many reasons to dance on the moguls' grave.

First is the corruption exposed in London, the institutional incest between news media and government, and the pernicious, unfair, and unbalanced influence on public policy.

Next is the breaking up of the mogul's monopoly control of the means of distribution, now that we all have a Gutenberg press in our pockets. We may at last recapture our public sphere.

Ah, but how can we attend the moguls' wake without hoisting a glass and telling a tale or two? Here are a few of mine ...

At the San Francisco Examiner (and Chronicle), I was Sunday news editor, producing the Ex's share of a widely vilified weekend paper. It was our burden to run a weekly editorial by William Randolph Hearst, Jr. We were to refer to him at WHR. Part of my job was to edit his tomes. Problem was, they made no sense. I didn't know it, but I was witnessing the twilight of the family's control. WRH was tolerated but soon professional managers ran the company for the family. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/world/rupert-murdoch/5352288/Rupert-Mu
rdoch-the-last-mogul

---