Support Grist
Support nonprofit, independent environmental journalism.
Donate to Grist.
Main Dish

Thinking Outside the Fox

Rupert Murdoch launches effort to green News Corp.'s operations and programming

By Amanda Griscom Little
09 May 2007
Tools: print | email | discuss | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS
Today, the fast-growing cadre of corporate leaders pressing for climate action welcomes a new member: Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corporation, the media empire that encompasses Fox News, 20th Century Fox, HarperCollins, MySpace.com, and dozens of newspapers in Australia, the U.K., the U.S., and beyond.

Rupert Murdoch
Rupert Murdoch.
Photo: Kelly Kline/WireImage.com
At an event held this morning in midtown Manhattan and webcast to all News Corp. employees, Murdoch launched a company-wide plan to address climate change that includes not only a pledge to reduce the company's emissions (which has come to be expected at such biz-greening events) but also a vow to weave climate messaging into the content and programming of News Corp.'s many holdings.

"The challenge is to revolutionize the [climate change] message," Murdoch told the crowd. He emphasized the need to "make it dramatic, make it vivid, even sometimes make it fun. We want to inspire people to change their behavior."

Grist obtained an exclusive advance copy of Murdoch's speech and the company's energy plan.

While not groundbreaking, Murdoch's strategy to cut News Corp.'s own emissions is nothing to sneeze at: The company will reduce its carbon footprint 10 percent by 2012 via energy-efficiency efforts and use of renewable energy, and it will become carbon-neutral even sooner, in 2010, by buying emission offsets from projects such as wind farms in India.

But Murdoch said that News Corp.'s hundreds of millions of viewers and readers represent the most fertile ground for change: "Our audience's carbon footprint is 10,000 times bigger than ours ... Imagine if we succeed in inspiring our audiences to reduce their own impacts on climate change by just 1 percent. That would be like turning the state of California off for almost two months."

These might be surprising observations coming from any media titan, but all the more so from a man who has long worn his conservative politics on his sleeve and whose company owns outlets like Fox News and The New York Post, which are widely considered right-leaning. Murdoch is an outspoken supporter of President Bush, and just last month criticized the press for being too hard on Dubyah. "[T]here's a sort of monolithic attack on him every day of the year," Murdoch told a meeting of business leaders.

While Fox News ran a surprisingly fair and balanced news special on climate change a year and a half ago, and has journalists like Shepard Smith who seem to take the problem seriously, the channel is better typified by conservative commentator Sean Hannity, who recently bashed Al Gore and others who are concerned about climate change as "liberal global-warming hysterical people."

So what's motivating Murdoch?

While he voiced concerns that "climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats," his emphasis was on opportunities to fatten the bottom line. "Our advertisers are asking us for ways to reach audiences on this issue," Murdoch said. He also argued that the new climate strategy would reduce energy costs, help the company recruit top talent, and provide "a chance to deepen our relationships with our viewers, readers, and web users."

And yet the strategy for boosting climate-related content throughout News Corp. divisions is still vague. Murdoch mentioned new green programming on the car and motorcycle cable network SPEED, a "Preserve Our Planet" program on the National Geographic Channel, and a channel dedicated to climate change on MySpace, but the larger vision is not yet defined by a quantifiable target.

News Corp. Vice President of Business Development Roy Bahat told Grist that the company will not try to awkwardly wedge the issue into programs, but said, "It will naturally become more prevalent throughout our programming, be it sitcoms or news. We are asking all of our creative leaders to incorporate climate change in ways that would make drama more dramatic, or comedy funnier, or news more relevant -- ways that inspire viewers to bond with the program."

Coverage of global warming in News Corp. outlets has already gone up considerably in the last year, Bahat said: "For example, The Times of London had roughly 50 percent more climate-related stories last year than the previous year. It wasn't because of a mandate, it's because the audience wants to hear about it. The audience drives us as much as we drive the audience."

But Murdoch himself seems very comfortable with the notion of driving his audiences, describing his goals in terms that smack more of a Greenpeace activist than a corporate boss: "The climate problem will not be solved without mass participation by the general public in countries around the globe. And that's where we come in."

How long, then, before American Idol participants are tasked with creating a snappier climate anthem than Melissa Etheridge's "I Need to Wake Up"?


Full disclosure: Amanda Griscom Little has a book contract with HarperCollins, a News Corp. company.

Tools: print | email | discuss | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS
Amanda Griscom Little writes Grist's Muckraker column on environmental politics and policy and interviews green luminaries for the magazine. Her articles on energy and the environment have also appeared in publications ranging from Rolling Stone to The New York Times Magazine.
< Previous | Next >
Comments: (14 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Username: Password:

Forgot your password? Enter your username and click:

Selling out

Hmmmm. I'll start on a tangent. To be honest, while I think that Al Gore has been a good ambassador for environmental issues, his movie (and his talk, which I saw in Portland) was over the top. It was slick, it was delivered well ... and it seemed contrived to me. I didn't have the sense that I was discovering something or learning something, I felt like I was being sold something.

Back to Rupert Murdoch: it's got to be good to start conveying a meaningful message on TV, right? But how do you make global warming "fun" without trivializing it? Will it be like product placement, with global warming instead of Coke? How can we possibly integrate responsible behavior with perpetual economic growth? Isn't there an inherent contradiction between the profit-making beast of NewsCorp and responsible, sustainable behavior?

I don't know how to get people to change their behavior. But I'm pretty sure we can't buy our way out of this. And I have never seen a TV program (at least on Murdoch's stations) that isn't selling something.

So why are all the firms really building in Dubuai

Why aren't firms drilling for oil in the islands off the Carribeans are the Pacific for that matter? Is there not more oil under the ocean than under the land?

Kool...
do i get credit?

I predicted this would happen.

The "green" movement has become this slicked packaged thing...Yes Blueberrysushi I do feel as if I was trying to be sold something with Gore...it just wasn't right, sort of like this other person that I won't name right now who is famous and no longer has a job...

I wrote a little piece on it (not this very thing, but just my feelings about some things) on my blog...

Here's just a snippet of the funny part of the future of the green movement if we don't figure out that is truly is the economy and consumerism that's killing the planet not the wrong light bulb.

"...Conde Nast will snort up the ashes and create a magazine called simply, Green.

Each month a very thin vegan model dressed in Green will be on the cover and try to sell us various hemp made products, because by then hemp will be legal (and taxed).

Marlboro will own the marijuana market.

Heal the Bay will become a government agency run by the post office. You'll have to stand in line for hours simply to get the 20 page document to get permission to have a clean-up. You'll have to do it six months in advance or risk large fines. Doing a clean-up will be like paying your taxes. Cleaning up the planet will actually become mandatory, but for some reason it will be a lot less fun and you'll have to pay for the privilege to do it..."

In bounciness, Lo Fleming

Will it change coverage?

Will Fox stop peddling junk science and featuring Skeptics?

Will Fox no longer favor politicians who embrace skeptics?

Will Fox challenge the Administration's denial of Global Warming's impacts and the need to take serious action?

Will Fox execute a 180 on the politics it has been supporting since its inception?

Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart. NOW!!! to Energize America .

he bought myspace

i'm just throwing that out there with nothing else.

i'm too scared to type the rest.

In bounciness, Lo Fleming

We (humanity) got lucky.

I`m sure that most people who know the science will be pleased with this.

However, the fact that one man has so much power is not something that we should be content with.

Untill the media has been fundementally reformed, and the majority of the public woken up, society will continue to be in the hands of an elite few moneyd people...this will ocassionally be positive as in this case, but overwhelmingly the interests of the wealthy buisness class and not the average american will be promoted.

Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky (wake up people)

Interested in climate change? http://climatechangeaction.blogspot.com

it's about control of content

Murdoch isn't doing this to do anything, but to control the coverage.

As with Myspace, MTV and all of the other initially very good ideas that turned into what they are now.

Murdoch doesn't care abut the environment just like Bush doesn't care about the environment when he supports ethanol.

Murdoch sees people who are writing about the environment (the new media) as a threat.

A threat that can take away money going to his advertisers and him, so what he is going to do is round up all the environmental writers and activists (that are marketable and have a wide range appeal,) throw some money at them (just a little) and they'll start writing about things like.

Greeing your wedding.
Greening your car.
Greening everything buy.
Keep buying things as long as it's green.

The environmental section will become like the calendar section. It will become like the Village Voice.

Remember the Village Voice, remember when the LA Weekly and the NY Village Voice was alternative and not a bunch of rich kids covering their friends bands and covering the same thing that is in the mainstream press but using the word dude and the f*** word to make it more approachable?

That's what's going to happen to the "green" movement when Murdoch gets his little grubby hands on it.

One guy owning everything is always, always a bad idea.


In bounciness, Lo Fleming

Trivialize

Fox may end up trivializing the green movement, but will the public?  Murdoch doesn't package and sell ideologies and in doing so make them cheap, he packages and sells ideologies that already have a firm base of support, and that continue to thrive after he's promoted them.  Though he may have simplified it, he certainly didn't trivialize the conservative movement.  And I happen to have a lot more faith in the American public: this movement is not going to explode and then disappear.  With more exposure, people are going to start thinking more critically about the issues, and I think we'll see a generation of younger folks that really do want to change the world.

That said, I agree that Murdoch's only motivation is green... that is: green bills... money.  dough.  cash.  bucks.  dinero.  moolah.  blingy bling.  oh yeah, and power too.  

Interesting to read the speech ...

as Murdoch seems driven to this by three factors:

  • Advertiser demands
  • Changing audience dynamic (don't buy climate skeptism, want green)
  • His watching Australia

You might be interested in "Fair and Balanced" ... unquote? as well as DeSmogBlog's petition to throw the Junk Science off Fox News.

Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart. NOW!!! to Energize America .
petition

There is a petition to throw off junk science from Fox News.

Lets see if Rupert is serious.

ooops

Sorry, it is already mentioned in the prevoius comment.

Carbon Neutral by 2010 ? Piffle.

Given the scale of the Murdoch businesses' Carbon Debt from their decades of trading,
and from the further decades of trading of the many companies that have been ingested,
the claim that by 2010 the entire debt will be neutralized is not even funny -
it's just embarrassing for Grist's reputation that such nonsense should be posted here.

That this fraudulent claim by Murdoch bots rests on the purchase of Indian Windmills only compounds the absurdity -
in reality, their output will marginally lower the price of coal power, thus making it accessible to poorer buyers.
There is no economic case for the claim of "renewables" displacing fossil energy,
unless and until there is a global treaty by which all nations' fossil fuel usage is constrained by binding, enforced, limits.

By contrast, planting trees does physically mop up measurable amounts of carbon.

So which well funded NGO is going to take Murdoch to court for trading under false pretenses ?

Regards,

Bill

My Fox Petition

It's regarding the Superbowl 2008

Say No to the Superbowl 2008

In bounciness, Lo Fleming

My Fox Petition

It's regarding the Superbowl 2008

Say No to the Superbowl 2008

In bounciness, Lo Fleming

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Username: Password:

Forgot your password? Enter your username and click:

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?


Also in Grist

The Week's Most Popular
From the Archives
Bird Watching, by Sarah van Schagen. Nine things you should know about musician Andrew Bird.
Dios Mio, by Michelle Nijhuis. Indigenous leader Julio Cusurichi Palacios battles for an intact Amazon.
First Things First, by Michelle Nijhuis. Canadian Sophia Rabliauskas fights to protect her First Nation territory.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Jobs Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcasts
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra® | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2007. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks