How Rupert Murdoch built an empire and broke his family

This is our glass. On this American life, we look for stories that are surprising. And you won't hear anywhere else. Like, for example, this one astronaut who went to the moon, you know what he's down into? Space. Was it cool to float around weightless? No, no, no. This American life, kind of expected stories, wherever you get your podcasts. This is Fresh Air. I'm Terry Gross. In 2023, Rupert Murdock officially named his most conservative child Locklin as the successor to the Murdock Media Empire. It includes Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, and more. The lawsuit to amend the Murdock family trust ended last year. The other three oldest Murdock children received $1.1 billion each in a buyout. It's a Shakespearean drama that journalist Gabriel Sherman details in his new book, Bonfire of the Murdoch's. He spoke with guest interviewer, Sam Fregoso. Here's Sam. Rupert Murdock was just 21 years old, a student in Oxford, when he inherited his first newspaper. It was in 1952, after the death of his father, Sir Keith Murdock, and the paper was the news of Adelaide, published out of southern Australia, with a circulation of about 75,000. Rupert was undaunted, though, and used the modest publication as a springboard to build a vast conservative media empire that currently includes Fox News, The New York Post, and The Wall Street Journal. But despite the size and scope of his continued efforts, Murdock has long seen newscorp as a family business, one to be left behind to his children, as his father did for him. In recent years, however, there's been a rift over how the family sees the future of the company, resulting in a legal dispute that pitted the eldest four siblings, Lachlan, James, Elizabeth, and Prudence, against each other. The argument, spearheaded by Rupert and his most politically-like-minded child, Lachlan, went something like this. If James, Liz, and Prudence succeeded in turning Fox News liberal, they would destroy the right-wing business model and tank the family fortune. As Rupert Saunt writes our guest, Gabriel Sherman, Murdock's conservative media empire was protecting the western civilization from liberal forces bent on its destruction. James' plot to destroy Fox News was a threat to the English-speaking world, Murdock said. In this way, Murdock now saw James less as a son than as the embodiment of the elites he'd been fighting his entire life, and who'd been fighting him. Last fall, Murdock and his son, Lachlan, resolved the matter by buying out the shares of the remaining siblings, with each receiving $1.1 billion. The protracted public battle and Shakespearean family struggles have become tabloid sensations, even inspiring shows like HBO's succession. But as Sherman details in his new book, Bonfire of the Murdock's, how the epic fight to control the last great media dynasty broke a family and the world, the damage was already done. Sherman has been covering the conservative ecosystem for the past two decades. His previous book was a biography on Roger Ailes called Loudest Voice in the Room. He's also written the screenplay for the film The Apprentice, which chronicle Donald Trump's early years as an ambitious real estate developer in New York City. Sherman has also been reporting on the Murdock family since 2008, and is currently a special correspondent for Vanity Fair. Gabriel Sherman, welcome back to Fresh Air. Good to be back. As I mentioned, you know, you've been covering the Murdock family for nearly 20 years now. Why was now the time to write this book? Well, as you said, this is a story I've been following basically for my entire journalism career, and you know, we're at the point in this story now where Rupert Murdock is turning 95 this March. And I felt like we got to the point where we could start to see the full sweep of this family's story. And I started reporting this book in earnest in 2023, and I continued to report up until several months ago when we finally had a true ending to the story, which was the resolution of the Nevada estate trust battle, where the Murdock children were fighting over Rupert's decision to hand the company to his oldest son, Lockland, and they reached a financial settlement, which determined the succession race that had been playing out for my whole career. So yeah, I felt like we we finally saw the resolution of the story, and it felt like the right time to to tell it in book form. When you look at the big picture of Murdock's efforts to expand the movie studio at Fox, the publisher Harper Collins, Wall Street Journal, his endless fascination with the markets in Asia, it appears like a man, at least from your book, trying to create an empire, or a Sumner Redstone, the billionaire and media magnet one said, Rupert Murdock basically wants to conquer the world, and he seems to be doing it. And yet Murdock himself throughout the book, and in recent interviews, insists on treating newscorp like a family business, and talks often about how his conglomerates entire reason for existence is for his children, whom he hoped one day would take the mantle just as his father did for him back in Australia. How did Rupert go about opening the doors and introducing the company to his children? Before all the succession battles, how did he do that? You know, one of the tragedies, maybe the central tragedy of the book is that Rupert Murdock said that his dream was to build a family business, and what he built was a business that destroyed his family. But going back to the beginning, he expected and wanted his children to be apprenticed in the business from the time that they were essentially old enough to read. There's an amazing anecdote in the book about how Rupert Murdock, who as you mentioned, traveled the globe, buying media companies, expanding his empire. When he did come through New York where he was raising his children, his second wife Anna would wake the children up at Don, make them put on a blazer and a tie, and come to the breakfast table where they would get of precious few moments with Rupert and discuss the news the day or the latest deal, machinations that he was doing. And it was basically a finishing school in the art of building a media business. And these were, you know, children 8, 9, 10, 12 years old. And Rupert never felt closer to his children than when he was discussing the business. How would you describe the four eldest children? Yeah, they almost have become sort of literary archetypes in their own right. We'll begin with Prudence, who's the product of Rupert's first marriage. So Prudence really was the only child who didn't play a role in the business. She, she events no desire to and, you know, she really lived and continues to live a private life. Elizabeth, the second oldest daughter, the product of Rupert's second marriage to his wife Anna. You know, she falls into the classic literary archetype of the daughter who is trying to prove herself in a patriarchal family. She's the only one who has built a significant business on her own outside of the family empire. She's proved herself as a business person. Locklin, the first born son, was the favorite son. He was the golden child. But he was a reluctant heir. I think Locklin felt the burden of his father's expectations. And then James Locklin's younger brother was the kind of family rebel. He tried on various different identities over the years. He grew up in New York City and at the Horace Man School, the elite private school, where many of the children of the city's power brokers go. He wore, you know, long trench coats and bleached his hair blonde. And to his father's dismay got his ear pierced and grew a beard. So James, you know, didn't really know where to fit into the business. And he tried to sort of find a role that would finally earn his father's approval. Given that their father had so little attention for them, really from the jump, he was busy traveling, building this empire. How would the kids vie for his attention? Were they competitive early on? Competition was a mainstay of the Murdoch household from the very beginning. The children would debate politics and argue at the table when Robert was home over meals on vacation at their house in Aspen. There's a famous story about how Locklin and James would do pull-up contests on the wooden rafters in the ski shell A to prove who was the strongest. Games of charades over the fireplace were ruthlessly competitive. They went skiing together, swimming and yachting. I mean, this was a family that competition played out kind of against the backdrop of, you know, the billionaire lifestyle. And again, when you kind of strip away the trappings of wealth and power that they all enjoyed, there was something, there's something very universal about the way these children were competing amongst each other to earn the attention of their very busy and sometimes withholding father. Very busy and withholding would also be a way to describe Rupert's father, Sir Keith Murdoch. He was a newspaper man whose career began in tabloid journalism. Under the edict that quote, a newspaper is to be made to pay, let it give the public what it wants. By the time Rupert was born in Australia, Murdoch his father was the editor of the Melbourne Harold. Was there a guiding journalistic philosophy that Rupert's father tried to instill in him from a young age? You know, Sir Keith Murdoch was trained by Lorde Northcliffe, who was one of the sort of defining press barons of London tabloid journalism at the early and the early of 20th century and the philosophy was that a newspaper is to be made to pay. Sensationalism, news and scoops and gossip, all of it was a seductive package that Sir Keith expected and wanted Rupert to learn and Rupert's media properties from the London Sun to the New York Post to even Fox News today. They all events that same DNA of news as entertainment news as profit and that was the philosophy that Sir Keith had. I think one of the things Rupert also learned from his father, which would guide him going forward, was the parallels of not being an owner. You know, you mentioned Sir Keith Murdoch was the editor of the Melbourne Times Harold group and he built the Times Harold into a national, an Australian national media conglomerate, but he was just an employee. He was not an equity owner of the business. And when his time came near the end of Sir Keith's career, he was sort of kicked upstairs and pushed to the side by the owners of the company. And I think Rupert felt very betrayed by that and saw the way his father was treated. And that is why if you look today, one of the constants of the Murdoch family business was that they would secure control of the company through a special class of stock that ensured that the Murdoch's would always be majority owners of the businesses. In the face of controversy, he would often say, quote, I answer to no one, but the public. They tell me what they want and I give it to them. When Murdoch decides to try his luck in America in the mid 70s, does that same approach, that same publishing philosophy, does it work out for him here in the States? It does, but it takes some time. I think you know, Rupert's foray into the United States in the mid 70s. He moved here in 1973. I mean, he had been coming to the States throughout his life. I mean, Rupert likes to talk about how he's met every American president since Harry Truman. But when he sort of relocated to New York in earnest in 1973, he had a lot of trouble breaking into the American media market. And his philosophy is basically you take what you can get. And one of his first major acquisitions in the United States was in San Antonio, Texas, of all places. There was two struggling newspapers in San Antonio that were put up for sale. And Rupert thought that this could be kind of a laboratory for him to try out his sensationalist form of British tabloid journalism in America. And that's what he did. He went west and in the kind of out of the way, you know, sort of off the radar of the New York elites, you know, he used San Antonio as a way to show that he could increase his readership. He boosted the circulation of these papers through just sensational and outrageous stories that, you know, had headlines like headless corpse found in gutter and, you know, only news value, which was to shock the readership. And that's what if you look at Fox News and things he's done subsequent, it's a it's a through line that has gone throughout his entire career. You know, when he leaves San Antonio and goes to New York, you know, in this period of acquiring the New York Post and then New York magazine, did he have a mission statement in mind? Like he's arriving on the heels of Watergate, Woodward and Bernstein are there. There's kind of a renewed passion and pride about journalism in the country. Where did he see his place in the media landscape? I mean, he had been moving basically rightward from the time he graduated university. He was to the left in his early years at Australia. He was kind of center center left in the UK. By the time he gets to America in 1973, he is firmly to the political right. And he saw Watergate as evidence of what an out-of-control liberal, quote, liberal press could do to a society. You know, he saw Watergate. He told people that Watergate was kind of a run-of-the-mill political dirty trick. It was clumsy. Yes, it was unseemly, but it was it was in no way something that Nixon should have been forced out of office for. And so Rupert saw himself- He didn't think Watergate was impeachable offense. Not at all. I mean, Rupert has, this is also I think one of his business advantages, but I think deficiencies in terms of his character. You know, Rupert has a philosophy that basically everyone's corrupt. Everyone does it. So the fact that Nixon got caught doing it is bad, but the Democrats were no better. You know, he always would say look at the Kennedys. And so I think he saw himself as a bulwark. I think by the mid-70s when the mainstream media, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS News, kind of the pillars of our, let quote, legacy media, I think Rupert saw himself as a corrective and as a way to give conservatives a voice. You know, the battle within the family seems to be Lockland and Rupert are to the right. The other three kids are a little bit more left. What was the tipping point for the three sort of democratic children? Was there a moment where they felt they needed to extricate themselves from their father and the Fox brand? I wish I could say it was, you know, a moral reckoning where the three politically liberal, more liberal children saw a line, you know, whether it was January 6th or any number of outrages that was too much. But I think what, why do you wish you could say that? Because I think the truth is much more human and the truth is much messier. I think the fact that Rupert unilaterally engineered Lockland's ascension to the throne, angered the other siblings, most of all James. James's opposition to the editorial direction of the company really only catalyzed after he was pushed to the side and after it was very clear that Lockland was the chosen one and Lockland would be the one to take over. And that's when James, you know, started giving interviews to, he gave one to Moring Dowd and he sent a letter to the ADL of protesting the Charlottesville a white nationalist rally that and condemning that and that email promptly obviously was leaked to the media. You know, James really made his political opposition known after the fact that he was cast to the side. And so I think some of this yes is a matter of politics, but I think it's also a reflection of he was the loser he lost and it was only after he lost everything. Did he feel willing to speak up? Eventually once the lawsuit is decided and it actually rules in favor of James Elizabeth and Prudence. They do agree to a buyout and I wonder did their moral awakenings because they spent a lot of time talking about you know, what Fox News has done to the country, their disdain for some of the coverage, their frustration with the dominion lawsuit, the endless ways in which Fox News has further divided the country. They've talked about how they hated that, how they did not see themselves in that image. Ultimately, did their moral awakenings, did they have a price tag? We know the price tag. It was about 1.1 billion dollars each, which is what Locklin and Rupert paid Prudence James and Elizabeth to relinquish their voting shares and give up any control over the future political direction of the empire. So yes, we actually do know the price. And I think that's something that, you know, they joke that if James was truly people of close to Locklin, one of Locklin's closest advisors told me, you know, they see that as part of the hypocrisy of James horrified by the source of his wealth and his privilege. Well, then he could give the money back. And of course, he's not doing that. And so I think that gets to the kind of the the messiness of that there's no real heroes and there's no real heroes or villains in this story. There's just a family. When they received the 1.1 billion dollars, did it come with the non-compete clause? I guess what I'm really trying to ask is if they are mortified by the Murdoch name and what it has produced? What is their willingness to use their own money? Collectively, 3.3 billion to combat their own father's legacy. They could do that. I mean, they are doing some things on on the margin, right? So James and his wife, Catherine Murdoch, are investors in the bulwark, which is a kind of anti-Trump conservative publication that's supposed to try to advocate for a intellectually rigorous conservatism, a fact-based conservatism. That's the antidote to the Maga movement. So they are doing things on the margin to try to change the politics of the country that their father shaped. But these are like tiny. These are like a BB gun on a battleship. I mean, they're doing their things, but they're not. I think if what you're asking is, are they plowing billions of dollars into funding a political movement to counter Fox News? No, the answer is no. We're listening to guest interviewer Sam Fregoso, who hosts the podcast Talk Easy, speaking with journalist Gabriel Sherman. Sherman's new book about the real succession story of the Murdoch media empire is titled Bonfire of the Murdochs. We'll hear more of the interview after a break. I'm Terry Gross, and this is Fresh Air. This message comes from Wise, the app for international people using money around the globe. You can send, spend, and receive an up to 40 currencies with only a few simple taps. Be smart. Get Wise. Download the Wise app today, or visit Wise.com. Tees and sees apply. This message comes from Sports in America with David Green. The world of sports is filled with stories that go beyond the highlights of the game. Join former Morning Edition host David Green for Sports in America from WHYYNPRX, a weekly show featuring in-depth conversations with star athletes, coaches, parents, and the millions of fans whose lives are touched by the game. Hear about the personal and transformative moments that make fans want to stand up and cheer each week on Sports in America with David Green. Listen wherever you get your podcasts. Over the years at NPR's Fresh Air, we've gotten to talk with a lot of great filmmakers. Now we've made a playlist of some of our favorites, including Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, Ava DuVernay, Mel Brooks, Spike Lee, Werner Herzog, and others. Find all our new playlists and more at [email protected]/freshair. In July of last year, the Wall Street Journal, which Murdoch owns, published a correspondence between President Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. According to the piece, Trump contributed a sign drawing of a naked woman as a gift for Epstein's 50th birthday. Happy birthday, the card read, and may every day be another wonderful secret. Trump promptly sued Murdoch $10 billion, posting on True Social. I look forward to getting Rupert Murdoch to testify in my lawsuit against him and his, quote, "pile of garbage newspaper, the Wall Street Journal." The Wall Street Journal has continued to stand behind the accuracy of the reporting, but Murdoch and Trump have had a fairly symbiotic relationship since the President won the Republican nomination back in 2016. What does their dynamic look like these days? What does Murdoch's influence on Trump at this moment? Well, I think at this very moment, as we speak, Murdoch has had a lot of influence in pushing Trump to walk back from the abyss in Minneapolis over the immigration crackdown that ICE has been doing. The Murdoch-New York Post published a scathing editorial talking about how Trump is going to destroy his presidency by the terrible images we're seeing coming out of Minneapolis. Trump has walked back, has deescalated with that pushback Fox News, Brian Kilmeade, the popular morning host of Fox and Friends, kind of did an open call out to Trump to get him to deescalate in Minneapolis. So on this one's particular issue at this one particular moment, he actually is having a lot of influence. That said, I think it waxes and wanes. Rupert and Trump have a very complicated love-hate relationship. I think it goes back to the very first Trump candidacy in 2015. Rupert famously did not think he was qualified to be president. And when Fox News broadcasts the first Republican primary debate, Rupert told then Fox News chief Roger Ailes that Fox News needs to draw a line and directed Megan Kelly and the other anchors to pepper Donald Trump with aggressive questions. And that was when Megan Kelly asked the now infamous question about Trump's history of misogyny. And since then, Trump has been very suspicious of Murdoch. So even though they are allies, I think they are allies of convenience. There's not a core, a deep, deep connection between these two men. I think they're like two lions in a cage. They circle each other and they'll work together when it benefits them. But they I think neither of them trust each other. What does Murdoch love about Trump and what does he hate about him? He said it was a love-hate relationship. Well, he loves that Trump pokes the establishment in the eye. I think he gets Rupert gets a kick out of the hysteria in Rupert's eyes. That Trump causes amongst the left. He's found a kinship in that. Yeah, Rupert, of course, obviously likes the deregulation, the low taxes, that part. But we have to remember, Rupert is an immigrant himself. He became an American citizen in 1985. He was one of the leaders in the loudest voices on the right of pushing for comprehensive immigration reform in the mid 2000s. And so I think Rupert sees Trump's hard crack down his nativism as not in the best interest of the country. And I also think he, Rupert is for a very muscular foreign policy. He's much more in the Neocon, Neoconservative, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher foreign policy than the kind of skeptical isolationism that we see in the MAGA movement. Rupert is also very pro-Israel. And I think the anti-Semitism that has bubbled up on the right is distressing to him. So there are very serious policy disagreements. But I think a lot of it also just comes down to style. I think Rupert just doesn't think Trump is qualified to be president. He doesn't, Rupert doesn't respect Trump as a business person. And I think he has seen Rupert sees Trump's serial bankruptcies and kind of his many business failures as he doesn't respect him as an equal as a business person. And a recent interview when you were asked about whether you would write a book on Trump. You said, quote, "I don't think I would want to spend every day of the next three years thinking about Donald Trump." And yet you did spend the last few years thinking about Murdoch. You also wrote the film The Apprentice about Donald Trump's early years. And of course, your book on Roger Ailes, the loudest voice in the room. So you do seem to have this preoccupation with these types of characters. Do you see a common denominator between the three of them? And what do you think it is that keeps pulling you back to the page? I do have a fascination with power and I do have a fascination with the dark side of power. I had a very unhappy childhood for reasons which I don't want to fully get into here. But I think part of my way of understanding the world is trying to understand how things that I am personally upset about are offended by things that I find distressing. I try to understand them as sort of I approach them with a curiosity. I think I see somebody like Roger Ailes who did so much to poison the idea of fact-based journalism and trust in journalism. And I try to understand how did he amass that much power. I think similarly with Trump, I see him as I saw him as like an outer burrow hustler, the youngest son of a middle class housing developer from Queens who wanted to just be somebody in Manhattan. I think like these characters who defy the odds, I just find endlessly fascinating and I don't have to like them or agree with their politics. But I think it comes from a place of deep curiosity of trying to understand darkness in a very human way. And that's what I tried to do is understand them as people. And we can see a universality, I think both between Roger Ailes, Donald Trump and Murdoch. I think there is this desire for power that transcends any kind of moral or ethical lines. And they get up in the morning and they look in the mirror and I don't imagine they see themselves as the bad guy. And I think that's fascinating. And I want to just understand how that works. So maybe when we see the next character who is in that vein, we will understand and maybe be able to be ready for it. We seem to be repeating these patterns of these kinds of characters who are a mass power through deceit and bullying. And I don't know, I'm drawn to it, I guess. You know, is there something in writing about these people, Ailes, Trump, Murdoch that has helped you contextualize a part of your childhood that has helped you understand. You mentioned that it was a painful one. Is there something in writing about them that has helped you with that or some insight that you've had? I think the three of them, Ailes, Murdoch, and Trump, and I actually have never said this or thought about this until now, I think they all had very traumatic and unhappy childhoods in their own right. Roger Ailes's father physically abused him. Donald Trump's father was disrespectful and didn't share his Trump's ambition to build him in Hatton and Rupert's father as we talked about it was withholding and judgmental. And so I think I find understanding the humanity of the bully to be something that I am endlessly fascinated by. You know, when people ask me, are you ever going to write another book or are you working on a new movie? I tell them that I know a project is my next project when I wake up every day thinking about the subject and I'm not bored by it and I want to keep understanding on a deeper level. And with these characters, these character types, I think I just every morning, I naturally just want to keep understanding them. There's a fine line though because I think some people listening to this will go, you know, what are the limits of empathy? What are the limits of trying to understand? Yeah, that's a valid question. I think, of course, it's something I think about. I think my metric or my baseline is I always lead with curiosity and understanding my subjects. And at the same time, I never want to let them off the hook. So here's an example. When I was writing the screenplay for the film The Apprentice, it was essential for me that the scene at the end of the film, spoiler alert, so stop listening if you haven't seen it. That depicts Donald Trump sexually assaulting and raping his then wife, Ivana, which was documented under oath in her divorce deposition. And you know, Trump denied it. She's late in later years, walked some of it back. But I felt that scene in the film had to stay because Trump has been incredibly accused of sexual assault by dozens of women. And that has to show that's not his entire character, but that is very much a part of the dramatic character I was writing. And so that's an example of their scenes in the film that are very humanizing and you see Trump being insulted by his father and disrespected by Roy Cohn. And you're like, oh, okay, he's really trying to make him, you know, look, feel sorry for the guy here. But that scene, I would not have put my name on the movie if it had been taken out because then it would just be a disingenuous movie. It would be a whitewash. So for me, I guess the line is, do I feel that I am showing the person in all of their true colors and not letting them off the hook while at the same time understanding that they had parents, they had a childhood. And I guess it's up to the reader to decide whether I have successfully done that. And as Rupert says, the readers can decide. We're listening to guest interviewer Sam Fragoso's conversation with journalist Gabriel Sherman, author of a new book about the succession battle within Rupert Murdoch's family to head the Murdoch media empire. The book is titled Bonfire of the Murdoch's, how the epic fight to control the last great media dynasty broke a family and the world. More after a break, this is fresh air. On Planet Money, we have covered a lot of topics. Like just try searching something on the internet and adding Planet Money to the end of it. Terrific prices, Planet Money, that's an episode. Stop sign war, Planet Money, that too. Alaska Halibut Derby, Planet Money. If you can ask it, we have probably answered it. Planet Money, listen on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts. This year's Grammys featured historic wins for Bad Bunny and Kendrick Lamar, lavish performances and occasional chaos. And it was a night of speeches that reflected this moment in America. Listen to a recap on pop culture happy hour in the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts. There is a long history of misinformation about autism, from accusations about bad parenting, to RFK Jr's false allegations that Tylenol has something to do with it. But science is getting closer to truly understanding what drives autism. It looks like there are hundreds of genes that are involved. To find out what the research actually says about autism and what we still don't know, listen to shortwave in the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts. On the subject of accountability, when it comes to Fox News, do you think Rupert has lost control of the outrage machine originally built by Roger Ailes? I do. I think Rupert is sort of now a captive of a prison that he built. He's not in control of the MAGA movement. I think the best example of that is the Dominion lawsuit. The Exodus of viewers after the 2020 election when Fox News tried to report the truth that Biden won and very quickly Fox News had to buy into the Trump stolen election conspiracy or else their business would collapse. I think one of the tragedies is that Rupert's desire for ratings and profits have unleashed the populism that now are far bigger than Fox News or any of his media properties. He's sort of now a surfer. I think my sort of mental image of Murdoch is he's now surfing. He's surfing a wave that he said in motion, but he can't stop the wave and all he can do now is try to write it. So Murdoch is writing the wave, but I'm curious about the ripples. Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Megan Kelly, all became stars at Fox and left, and have arguably become bigger stars since leaving. I mean, all of those broadcasters have shows that consistently rank within the top 50 of all podcasts. On YouTube, they have upwards of four to five million subscribers. Fox News is said to have around 2.5 million viewers per day. You know, their audiences, the audience is attracted to those shows from from Megan Kelly, Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson. They're all they're all more vocal and to the right of what Fox News offers. How has Rupert Reckon with the fact of their existence and their success? Well, I think you can look at it two ways. I think you can look at influence and you can look you can look at money. On an influence basis, you're right. You know, Tucker Carlson is probably the most influential voice in conservative media today. Megan Kelly is another Candace Owens on the kind of conspiracy right is obviously a big player. So they're very influential and they make money, but the size of Fox News is business. The profits that Fox News generates the more than a billion dollars of profit dwarfs the size of their podcast and their own personal media companies. So I think Murdoch reconciles it just fine when he looks at the money that his company is making. But yes, as a matter of influence, the the bar is shifting towards digital media towards personal brands versus a network. And I think that speaks to the larger story of what's happening in the conservative media and just media more generally is the atomization of of the audience of people of sort of audiences gravitating around personalities, whether it's through TikTok Instagram podcasts. And that is a space in which the Murdoch's don't really have a huge footprint. They're not pioneers, I should say, in the kind of shift to digital vertical video that we're seeing. And that's an open question now of what's going to happen. You know, Fox News's audience continues to get older by the year. So it's a bit of an actuarial game like how long can the Fox News audience continue to to be a profitable business as it gets older and older? Rupert is 94 years old with with four children, the oldest ones, a varying levels of estrangement. After 70 years of Rupert talking about building a family business, do you think he still thinks of it that way? He does. I think he he sees handing the empire to Lachlan as his as a triumph. He's always wanted to do that. I think he's sad. I mean, I do think, of course, who wouldn't be disheartened that your children are estranged from you and to some extent, each other. But I do think the fact that he has held the business within the family, I think the fact that his son Lachlan is the CEO and majority, you know, they they have ownership and control over the business. It is still a family business. And that is the measure by which I think Rupert measures success. I don't think he measures success by how close of a relationship he has with the children. If he had to sort of merge the company or sell it to someone else, that would be a failure because it would no longer be a family business. But he has actually done what he set out to do was to pass the company to one of his children. And at the cost of destroying the nuclear family in which they all grew up in. You know, since the time he was a teenager back in Australia, Murdoch has been saying, my only palpable goal is to change the world. Having nearly spent the last 20 years covering Rupert Murdoch, how do you think he'll be remembered? Did he do just as he set out to do way back when in Australia? I think without question, he's one of the most consequential people of the 20th and early 21st century. There's few people that have had more effect on global politics than he has. I happen to think he's been a incredibly destructive force on global politics. But there's no doubt regardless of whatever you think of if you're left-right center, he is a consequential figure. He did change the world. I think, unfortunately, now we're all going to be living with the consequences. Gabriel Sherman. Thank you. Thank you for having me. Gabriel Sherman is the author of Bonfire of the Murdoch's. He spoke with guest interviewer, Sam Fragoso, host of the interview podcast, Talk Easy. Coming up, TV critic David Biancoly reviews the return of the Muppets. This is fresh air. Do you ever feel like no matter how many hours of sleep you got, you're still fatigued? We have to be able to differentiate sleep from the different ways that we can rest. On the LifeKit podcast, the seven types of rest and why each one is important to living a full, healthy life. Listen to the LifeKit podcast in the NPR app, or wherever you get your podcasts. It is hard to get a house. Getting that down payment together? Brutal. You shipped off to Djibouti to afford a down payment for a house? Yes, sir. 100%. On planning money, the high price of housing. What the Trump administration is trying to do about it, and will it work? Listen on the NPR app, or wherever you get your podcasts. This week, on a first, a high stakes funding fight over ice tactics can Democrats negotiate any real change, or will the Trump administration refuse to budge? Get up, get informed, and get on with your morning with a first, the top three stories you need to start your day. Listen on the NPR app, or wherever you get podcasts. Tomorrow, ABC presents a new primetime special, a revival of the Muppet Show. It also starts streaming tomorrow on Disney Plus. According to our TV critic, David Biancouli, it's not the first attempt to bring Jim Henson's cuddly creatures into the ABC fold, but it's one of the best in a very long time. Here's David's review. Kermit The Frog, the most famous creation of the late puppeteer and producer Jim Henson, has a lineage almost as old as TV itself. Kermit first appeared as a character on a local TV show in Washington, DC in the mid-1950s. By the end of the '60s, Kermit was one of the many Muppet stars on Sesame Street, a preschool program where they flourished ever since. ABC televised a pair of Muppet specials in 1974 and 1975, but they didn't catch on. But in 1976, Henson took his furry characters to TV syndication, with a variety show that harkened back to the days of Vodville. Kermit played the host of a theater where the Muppets and some human guest stars put on a weekly show. While a pair of grumpy old Muppets, statler and Waldorf, watched and heckled from their box seats. It was called the Muppet Show, it lasted five years, and it was brilliant. Stars flocked eagerly to guest star with Kermit and company, from old Vodvillians George Burns and Milton Burrell to hot young entertainers like Linda Ronstadt, Elton John and Steve Martin. The Muppets shifted to the movies, but ABC also kept trying to revive the original TV franchise. In 1996, Jim Henson's son, Brian, produced a wonderful update for ABC Muppets Tonight set at a TV station like SCTV. Much more recently, in 2020, Disney, the new corporate owners of ABC presented a terrible update Muppets Now on Disney Plus, where the show now run by Scooter instead of Kermit was a program targeting the internet audience. But now, for 2026, ABC has come to its senses and gone back to basics. Director Alex Timbers and his writing staff have put Kermit back in charge, returned to the old theater setting, Statler and Waldorf included, and gone back to the way things used to be. Thank you, thank you. Thank you. Paiho and welcome to the Muppet Show, everybody. You are so excited to be back on the very stage, where it all started, and then ended, and then is maybe starting again, depending on how the night goes. I can't believe they're doing the old show again. Well, if it ain't broke, no, they are broke. That's why they're doing it. If this is a test balloon, I hope they do make more. Because with a new generation of writers and puppeteers, this new iteration of the Muppet Show is just as delightful as the one that premiered 50 years ago. Guests on this special include Maya Rudolph, who sits in the theater audience. That's about the only real tweak for this new version. Humans and Muppets sit together in the audience. Also featured is Seth Rogan, who's one of 12 executive producers. But, as Fuzzy Bear informs him, he's not featured so prominently. It's always been a dream of mine to be here. Got any other dreams? What does that mean? You're cut. I mean, think of the producer. Then you can let yourself know what going in a different direction. And finally, there's special guest Sabrina Carpenter, who appears in musical numbers and comedy sketches, just the way humans like Linda Ronstat used to. And just as effectively. In this scene, Miss Piggy burst into Sabrina's dressing room, unknowingly flattening Kermit, who moans in pain while hiding from Miss Piggy. Did you hear that? Oh, Kermit said the theater is really old and the pipes are a little noisy. Oh, really? What else did Kermit say? Did he mention he cut my big number from the show? What? No, that's crazy. There's no Muppet Show without a Miss Piggy number. Exactly! If only he were around to hear that. I am so sorry. You don't deserve to lose one second of screen time. You are an icon. Oh, stop it. You're too sweet. Go on. I grew up watching you. My parents grew up watching you. Their parents grew up watching. Kermit played over. If Kermit ever shows his face, you let him know. I am going to sing in this show! She does sing, and so does Sabrina. And they both provide the comedy, along with Kermit, the sweetest chef, Pepe the King Prawn, Foszy Bear, Beaker, Janice, Gonzo, Animal, and my absolute favorites, Statler and Waldorf. Those last two might not like this revival of the Muppet Show, but I love it. TV critic David Biancouli reviewed the Muppet Show. Tomorrow it airs on ABC and streams on Disney+. Tomorrow on Fresh Air, we're heading into a dictatorship if we're not already in one. That's what our guest, historian and Atlantic magazine writer Robert Kagan is warning. He's a former Republican and author of Rebellion, Donald Trump, and the anti-liberal tradition in America. He says the anti-liberal tradition dates back to the Revolutionary War. I hope you'll join us. To keep up with what's on the show and get highlights of our interviews, follow us on Instagram at NPR Fresh Air. Fresh Air's executive producers are Danny Miller and Sam Brigger. Our technical director and engineer is Audrey Bentham. Our interviews and reviews are produced and edited by Phyllis Myers and Rebellionado Lauren Crenzel, Theresa Madden, Monique Nazareth, Thaya Challener, Sussan Nikundi, Anna Bauman, and Niko Gonzales Whistler. Our digital media producer is Molly CV Nesper. Roberta Shorock directs the show. Our co-host is Tanya Mosley. I'm Terry Gross. Valentine's Day is coming up and the perfect gift for the NPR lover in your life is waiting at the NPR shop. From cozy sweaters and mugs made for slow mornings to our tiny desk hoodie, there's something for every NPR fan. Each purchase supports public media and the journalism you love. Find something meaningful at shopNPR.org. I'm Mary Louise Kelly, world news is changing by the hour. On sources and methods, NPR's National Security Podcast, we zoom out to explain shifting alliances, global flashpoints, and what's really happening in places like Iran, Venezuela, Greenland. Our reporters on the ground connect the dots to help you understand a world order changing beneath their feet. Listen to sources and methods on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts.