Businessman Rupert Murdoch has lost an epic legal battle against three of his children: He wanted to wrest control of his media empire back from them, settle it solely upon his son Lachlan in the event of his death, and thereby... Well, who knows his true motivation? Most likely to destroy, but who and in what order, is now lost in a sealed court decision in Nevada.
Everyone is calling it the “Succession trial,” partly because it is about succession, partly because it sounds like an episode of the TV program Succession and partly because it was also inspired by one.
After the death of Logan Roy (who, for readers who live in a cave, is fictional), Elisabeth Murdoch’s representative, Mark Devereux, penned the “Succession memo,” which aimed to prevent turmoil following the mogul’s death. Instead, it just brought that turmoil forward so it could happen while he was still alive.
Illustration: Constance Chou
I am just going to share with the family my own Succession memo: Guys, good job for watching, it is a great show, but if the fact of mortality was your only take home, then you really were not paying attention.
Ten years ago, if you met the super-rich on TV, it was wealth porn (we called it that in the UK; in the US, they called it “lifestyle porn”). Shows from Big Little Lies to Billions, and films from Fifty Shades to the Twilight franchise dramatized shiny, marque-sport utility vehicle lives, in which the awesomely wealthy did fabulous, terrible things. It was escapism, and part of the escape was from the everyday reality that we were all already getting poorer.
However, as sociologist Rowland Atkinson said, it “seemed to be different from what we’ve seen in the past. You look at a very opulent production such as Brideshead Revisited and that Edwardian-era excess had a strong sense of social investment. But [shows like Big Little Lies] present a life that has almost removed itself from society. Staggering wealth now represents the ability to escape, rather than be noticed.”
There has been a volte-face. The super rich in today’s dramas are not removed from society, hermetically sealed, with our piggy viewer noses pressed up against the glass. They mean us ill; they mean each other ill; they spell disaster; they are in society and making it worse. The composer of the Succession theme tune described his mission as he understood it: “How can I make it feel as though something’s wrong?”
The love of money corrodes those people. Their greed destroys their human connections, their luxury stupefies them. And they are all, from Succession to The White Lotus, incredibly unhappy — flattered and coddled by a rolling cast of servants that represents society as a whole, they do not notice us and they hate each other. The physics of love — that money cannot buy it, match it or compensate for the lack of it — is reversed among the billionaire class. Love cannot match the cupidity they need to always be maximizing. It is just not strong enough.
That is the main lesson I would take from Succession if I were Rupert Murdoch: Balkanize your empire and give it all away. Give it to a cat’s home, to Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders), to anyone. Is there anything sadder to imagine than spending the rest of your life fighting your loved ones over money you can never spend?
The likely cause of Rupert’s bias towards Lachlan, which has become more and more pronounced, is that he is the closest to his father politically. The other heirs, particularly James, have become more and more vocal in their opposition to climate change denial, Trump support and the whole toxic sludge of “alt-right” talking points spewing out of Fox News.
Succession can help there, too, with what might be its clearest lesson: Do not get involved with politics. Maintain decent standards of impartiality in your media, and keep your distance from political parties and candidates. Not because it is a tricky tiger that might go in an unpredictable direction and would be difficult to dismount, but because it is morally wrong.
The young Murdochs might want to reflect on inequality. They look like winners, the great “haves” in a divided society, but then why are the younger Roys so catastrophically unhappy? Why are they beset by anxiety, poleaxed by addiction, crushed by self-doubt, coarsened by sociopathy and incapable of intimacy? It has been pretty well known since authors Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett’s seminal The Spirit Level — realistically, probably since the Bible — that unequal societies do not just make those at the bottom less happy, but corrode well-being in every decile.
Is it because it destroys your sense of purpose and challenge, to be born into wealth in the first place? Does hoarding money demand a learned callousness to the plight of others, which gets to you in the end? Is there some other factor that only fellow billionaires would be aware of? It does not really matter why. That is settled social science.
Other lessons, in no particular order: Do not underestimate your sister, or your stepmother or your mother; do not underestimate the fathomlessness of human malice; and do not listen to music too loud on your headphones, even rich people can get tinnitus. Far more importantly, choose happiness; give your wealth away; start today. The sooner the Murdochs fall in love with redistribution, the sooner they would learn to love themselves.
Zoe Williams is a Guardian columnist.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS