Rupert Murdoch gets the urge to merge (again)

MURDOCH AND HALL. Formalize their romantic “contract.”

Media Mogul Rupert Murdoch may be all of 84 years old, but he recently stunned people who thought they knew him inside-out when he announced his engagement to former supermodel Jerry Hall, 59!

Hall was previously romantically involved for many years with Mick Jagger, while Murdoch has been married thrice before.

He’s reported to be worth $11 billion and is executive chair of News Corp. He and his family control 120 newspapers in five countries, including the Sun and the Times in the UK, and own book publisher HarperCollins.

The Murdochs also own a large cable TV network, including the Fox channels in the US. Other media properties include 21st Century Fox and the Sky TV Corp.

For her part, Jerry Hall’s  relationship with Jagger produced four children, but they split in 1999. In court proceedings, she cited infidelity as the cause of the break-up.

Aside from being a top model, she also did some acting and even performed in sexy cabaret acts with Grace Jones.

The films she appeared in include “Urban Cowboy” and “Batman,” and she also acted onstage, in “Bus Stop,” “The Wall,” “The Graduate” and “Picasso’s Women.”

After the “senior” couple announced their engagement, many people wondered why they would go beyond just dating and actually get married. —After all, Hall’s long union with Jagger didn’t involve getting officially wed.

But analysts point out that Murdoch himself appears to be the one who insists on “formalizing” his romantic “contracts.” They point out that he’s been married (to different women) since 1956—a total of 60 years (with just a few years “off” between and after divorces). —The guy just loves being married!

‘Constructive’ criticism

A popular TV personality has reacted to our notes on how on-cam talents and program hosts can improve their work. She says she doesn’t take our negative observations personally, even if some of them “felt” like they were aimed in her direction!

—That’s the sort of reaction we like to hear, because our critiques really have no personal agenda—we’re just articulating what viewers have told us at media fora. After all, they are why we’re all in the business of show-and-tell, right?

More unsolicited reactions: TV interview shows focus too much on politicians, many of whom use the TV exposure for their own biased and even fact-twisting purposes. As a result, their interviews don’t really serve the viewing public.

We need  interviewers who are not afraid to ask the really tough questions, because that’s what viewers need to get factual and objective clarity about!

We know that some TV personalities feel that they need to “play along” with political leaders in order to get on their good side and thus score “scoops.”

But, there’s a limit to this apple-polishing approach, and “cooperative” TV people should remind themselves that their principal motive should be to inform and serve the viewing public, nobody else.

Once this key focus has been reestablished, they can’t go wrong. If it continues to be fudged up and compromised, even with the best intentions in the world, TV interviewers won’t get or deserve the public’s all-important trust.

There are TV news “stars” who think that they have succeeded in fooling viewers. What they don’t realize is that exposés are going the rounds of social media that reveal their behind-the-scenes “attack and collect—defend and collect”   schemes. Even more damningly, it’s the people who have paid them through the nose who have been doing the exposing.

So, erring TV people should voluntarily turn a new leaf, before they have to be forced to do so. It’s time to read the handwriting on the wall—before it falls down on them.