Why is Matthew Freud still sniping at James Murdoch? Surely James has enough problems--including reports that he might be recalled to testify before the British Parliament to clear up discrepancies in last week’s testimony, as well as possible subpoenas from the US government--right now, without having to face the additional burden of being sniped at by his brother-in-law. That brother-in-law would be the same Matthew Freud, married to James’ sister, Elisabeth Murdoch. And yet at this moment of vulnerability, Matthew sure seems to have James in his crosshairs.
The Cable Gamer can’t prove that Freud is out to get James, but TCG can point to plenty of circumstantial evidence to support the assertion. After all, this latest incident fits a pattern of on-the-record comments from Freud going back at least a year-and-a-half; as TCG has been saying, Freud seems to be driven by various motivations, including, but not limited to the following non-exclusive factors: a) most obviously, a dislike of James Murdoch; b) a dislike of family patriarch and News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch; c) revenge for the dismissal of his close friend, Rebekah Brooks; d) a dislike for Fox News, the most reliably profitable part of the News Corp., closely associated with Rupert; e) a desire to advance his wife Elisabeth into the corporate helm of NWS, stepping over the metaphorical dead bodies of both Rupert and James. Of course, there could be truth in all five explanations--he knows what seethes in the conscious, and the unconscious, of Sigmund Freud's grandson.
The latest evidence of Freud’s non-family values comes from a reporter, Johnnie L. Roberts, writing for the supercool media website TheWrap.com, who produced a fascinating piece the other day, “A Murdoch Family Rift? What Elisabeth & Lachlan's No-Show Might Have Revealed.” Roberts relies on a key source to take us behind the scenes, so that we can peek at the internal power struggle within the News Corporation, even as it is besieged by outside investigators and critics.
Roberts begins by noting something that many of us noticed--that two of Rupert’s high-profile children, closely associated with NWS--Elizabeth and also Lachlan Murdoch--were not in attendance at the Tuesday Parliamentary hearing in London. That was the day that Rupert described as “the most humble day of my life.” One might think that all Rupert’s kids would want to show up for that, but for whatever reason, they did not.
OK, so that bit of media “kremlinology” got Roberts going. But Roberts had more than that for his story--he had a great source.
Roberts is a great reporter who protects his sources--or source. But at the same time, Roberts is honest, and so as one parses through this particular story, the identity of the source becomes pretty obvious.
Let’s start with the way that Roberts identifies his source:
Recently, James, Murdoch’s heir-apparent, and Elisabeth, a past favorite, haven't been seeing eye to eye, an individual close to the family, who has an uncommonly keen grasp of its inner workings, told TheWrap.
Now let’s think about that description of the source a little bit. Start with an “individual close to the family.” OK, that could be a lot of people. But then there’s that tantalizing next close: “who has an uncommonly keen grasp of its inner workings.” Roberts is an old pro; he wouldn’t say that about too many people; he is clearly signaling something here. Perhaps more than the source would have liked, in fact. Indeed, later in the same article, Roberts reveals a bit more identity, referring to his source as “family insider.” Now that really narrows down the list of possible sources--down to one. Matthew Freud.
OK, so let’s keep going. The source helps set the stage, describing the scene in which Rupert, at age 80, is grilled by British Members of Parliament. Here’s the way the insider source characterized the moment:
In fact, according to the family insider, clan members themselves perceive their situation in Shakespearean terms.
Note, again, in the preceding, the phrase “family insider.” OK, so now it continues:
But it's not the "obvious 'King Lear,'" the insider cryptically pointed out to TheWrap.
King Lear is a famous character from a Shakespeare play. Lear is an old man, betrayed his children, who leave him on the windy heath of Scotland, bewailing his harsh fate. In the end, Lear dies a sad death. But TCG had to look all that up. So now ask yourself: How many current-day American media executives know references such as Lear? And use them in conversation to further diminish the octogenarian Rupert? Answer: Not too many. Knowledge of King Lear is the sort of high-toned reference that comes from someone such as Freud.
So that’s another “tell,” as they say in poker. There are more. The source takes a good slam at the Murdoch public relations team, saying through Roberts that Rupert had launched:
an ill-advised PR strategy recommended by Murdoch’s crisis spinmeisters at Edelman Inc.
“An ill-advised PR strategy” ouch! A strategy recommended by someone other than Freud. Double ouch! And that’s very revealing, because Freud, as a p.r. man himself would have loved to work the p.r. for this matter. But as TCG has noted recently, Freud has been frozen out of the action because James and Rupert no longer trust him. Such freezing out, of course, only means that he is all all the more angry.
It gets better: The same source refers to James’ career in the past tense:
James’ interest is manifest in so much that he is heir-apparent -- or perhaps was.
And then another slam at James:
Although most of the hacking had ended by the time he was appointed, James has overseen the bumbling response to it, throwing his future into question.
"Bumbling response"--thanks Matthew! And then another slam at James, digging up some ancient history:
In the rival Sydney Morning Herald, the younger Murdoch was famously pictured napping at a press conference while on an intern assignment for his family’s Sydney Daily Mirror.
Once again, ask yourself: Who has that sort of decades-old data at his fingertips? And has the desire to use it? Not too many, as in very few, as in, only one--Freud. A which point, James must be thinking to himself, if he were reading Roberts’ piece, “Thanks, for nothing, bro!”
Yes, indeed, Matthew Freud is one piece of work. But by his works we shall know him. We shall know exactly who he is, and what he is doing to his own family. You are a clever man, but perhaps in your own hubris about your cleverness, you could not resist signaling to readers that you were the one behind this. You, with the black heart--a telltale heart.
Yes, indeed, Matthew Freud is one piece of work. But by his works we shall know him. We shall know exactly who he is, and what he is doing to his own family. You are a clever man, but perhaps in your own hubris about your cleverness, you could not resist signaling to readers that you were the one behind this. You, with the black heart--a telltale heart.