Fairfax - no boss zone

[Dazz]

I'm reading all of the brouhaha surrounding the latest round of re-positioning, and our home grown WA lass with a bag of cash buying up stuffy left wing wannabes and their east coast rags.

David Marr, the abomination who was on that dreadful episode of Q&A slagging off Ms Rinehart for all he could, now finds himself in the uncomfortable position of his target likely to be his ultimate boss. This should be fun !!

To see all of these left wing journo's demanding stuff they have absolutely no right to demand from the owner's and managers of the company is just hilarious.

I'm trying to relate this worker mentality of "we will do whatever the hell we like and we absolutely demand complete independence from interference and influence from any management levels, and will brook no resistance whatsoever. We've been doing whatever the hell we like for over 20 years and we demand that it continues."


I reckon Billy Connolly would be struggling to write this stuff.


.....this from a company about to go down the toilet....with new buyers purchasing stock at the 60c a pop level that were many multiples of that a few years ago.....perhaps this isn't the best business model to run with fellas ??


Anyway, it's warming to read a few commentators saying "Hey, you left wing guys, if you want to run the show, stump up your own cash, buy the thing yourself and knock yourself out." Unfortunately, being socialists, they are only good at spending other peoples money, and so don't actually have any of their own, so that option is out.....so all that's left is to stomp their feet like children and demand stuff.


I'm just trying to picture this worker / boss "independent" thing, where the boss gets no say....

-------

Mr BHP Chairman : "Go and dig over there and stockpile it over here."

Mr Haulpak driver : "No, I demand to dig elsewhere and refuse to stockpile it anywhere.....I've been driving trucks for 20 years and will drive wherever I damn please. How very dare you."

-------

Mrs Fashion Guru : "I want 300 dresses cut like this and they are to made of lilac silk."

Lowly seamstress : "No, I shall make 1,000 pair of knickers and I prefer yellow leather. How very dare you."

-------

Bakery Owner : "We've got to deliver 20,000 loaves of bread by 4am."

Baker : "No, instead, my preference is to bake 3,000 doughnuts and I won't be finished 'til 11am. How very dare you."

-------

Lindsay Fox : "Right, I want 15 semi-trailers headed to Brisbane tonight. Go."

Truckie : "No, we all wish to drive to Darwin. How very dare you."

-------

Telstra Chairman : "I want to lay a digital cable from Melbourne to Sydney to handle the increased internet traffic."

Linesman : "No, we are only prepared to dig a trench between Canberra and Adelaide. How very dare you."

-------


Healthy businesses where the managers and owners have no say in the product being produced....yep, good onya.


It brings a broad smile to my face to know that poor ol' evand and his mates only have the choice between Murdoch and Gina papers in this country....and the overlord protectorate Senator Conroy can't do a damn thing about it.

I miss Kerry Packer....

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

It brings a broad smile to my face to know that poor ol' evand and his mates only have the choice between Murdoch and Gina papers

People still read newspapers? Hey Dazz, you forgot about one thing, mate: the internet.

It's (kinda) free, everyone has their say, from the oppressively politically correct of the Left to the 'war is great, kill the poor' nut jobs of the Right. It's not as if anyone is forced to rely on getting the evening paper for their news anymore.

That's why they're going out of business.

 

[Dazz]

People still read newspapers? Hey Dazz, you forgot about one thing, mate: the internet.

...true, but I was under the impression that the 'product' Fairfax was dishing out was the same regardless of the medium...whether it was on paper or on the internet.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but when a journo writes an article, I thought it was the same ?? Do they really write two separate and difficult articles....one for the paper and one for the internet ??

News to me.


My post was regarding the content of the article, not how the article actually came before your eyes.

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

Nah mate, I meant people don't rely on papers anymore. The news can be accessed for free on the internet, from any source, not just Fairfax or News Ltd. Print media is a dying breed and I don't know how they're going to convince enough people to pay for online services to remain viable.

 

[Dazz]

people don't rely on papers anymore.

It seems the young folk don't so much....but up and down my street, almost everyone has one paper on their lawns in the morning, some have two, and on weekends it's common to have three sitting there on the lawn.

A lot of elderly folk (30+) spend a good portion of their day reading the paper from cover to cover.

Many many do not own computers, or any other device connected 'online'.


....but anyway, how they consume their media products is waaaay different to what they consume. It appears the workers want to run the show in this industry. I'll be interested to see what steps the largest shareholder in Fairfax takes in enforcing her position.

Perhaps Fairfax won't have to sack or make redundant any of those 1,900 supposed job losses....perhaps they'll be able to fill the quota with high handed "I demand you to do this or I quit" type journalists.

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

Dazz, I want to make it clear that I agree with your assertion in the original post about it being unreasonable for employees to expect they can run a business with no input from the owners. That's just stupid. However, I don't think it's as simple as you make it out to be. There seems to be a lot of concern about people with certain political views controlling media and differing views being squashed as a result.

Let's face it - it's not just the Left that make this claim. For every Leftie journo that you can point to as an example, I can point to a Right Winger that is making exactly the same claim.

Personally, I don't really care what Rinehart's intentions are with Fairfax. She can use it as her own personal soundboard all she wants, there are lots of alternatives out there readily available.

 

[Dazz]

I don't think it's as simple as you make it out to be. There seems to be a lot of concern about people with certain political views controlling media and differing views being squashed as a result.

What of their concern ??

Is the concern about the control aspect, or is it about the "special" case media try and portray themselves as.....i.e. they are not a 'normal' business.

What is a business owner supposed to do when a certain percentage of the workforce wish to go in a different direction than how that owner wishes to run the business ??

I distinctly remember in '92 when Kerry Packer pulled the plug on Doug Mulray's one-off "Australia's Naughtiest Home Videos" show and immediately replaced it with a re-run episode of Cheers. Now that was a good move.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...r-blew-his-stack/story-e6frf0a0-1111117239870

 

[pennyk]

I wont buy a newspaper that is clearly propaganda from its owners.

Despite yours (and others) views that SMH is left wing, it does usually present the news without opinion. and it does have a range of opinions in the editorials. I read the Australian a while ago, and the news (not editorials) was full of opinions, rather than facts. I think that is really unprofessional.

If there was a major accident through negligence at one of Ms Reinharts mines, would she allow the news to be reported without prejudice? The perception, at least would be that she was covering up.

I just think its bad marketing for the newspaper to not be seen as being "independent".

Its not the same as Packer removing Doug Mulray. But if you want to have an example from non-news entertainment, one of the reasons the Simpsons has been so successful is that they refused to give up editorial control. Fox was seen as being very right wing and controlling, and by allowing The Simpsons to poke fun at hem, the reputation of Fox improved.

The other board members at Fairfax understand what a strong marketing tool the "perception" of being independent is.

 

[HiEquity]

I suspect a good deal of the concern is related to many people's idea that mainstream media is "independent" and giving them "unbiased" reporting of the facts. Of course that has never been the case for privately owned media companies. There have been times when that fact was easier to hide than at other times but the fact remains... and always has done.

Such influence is far easier to see in the US when channels like Fox News throw out all semblance of impartiality and just get stuck in to anyone left wing at every opportunity. The whole coverage is just complete propaganda but they don't pretend any different so what's wrong with that?

Of course in Australia an owner who is just interested in the profit motive will push a relatively even coverage in order to maximise viewers and profits. An owner who pushes a particular political or industry line will just lose viewers from whichever side they don't support. I hardly read the Australian anymore for example because it has just become far too partisan in too many of the things it reports on. I prefer balanced coverage in analysis and opinion and go online to find it generally in response to not finding it in the MSM.

To me, this is all just part and parcel of having privately owned media. If Rinehart takes control of Fairfax there will be no voice of the left in the mainstream media but this will just provide a boost to up and coming alternative providers who do provide that voice. The balance will restore itself because the Australian people represent that balance and will make up their own minds about who to listen to and get their news from.

This just makes the argument for supporting the ABC even stronger. While it does have a left lean to it in my view, courtesy of the political leanings of many of its journalists, its news coverage is generally pretty even, which is how I like it. As Fairfax and News Ltd push their own agendas in their papers more and more, I can see a rush to the relatively safe haven of the ABC in response. Which would not be a bad thing as their coverage is usually a lot more detailed and thorough than the commercial stations / papers / web sites. The more people getting out of the TT / ACA circuit the better.

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

What is a business owner supposed to do when a certain percentage of the workforce wish to go in a different direction than how that owner wishes to run the business ??

Not a valid comparison in this case.

Fairfax has been printing various newspapers for decades. It's not like Gina owned Fairfax shares, then all the journo's decided to 'revolt' against her wishes. She's buying with the (seeming) intention to change things such that the papers become a soundboard for her views.

That is what people are concerned about. You say 'Well, if the journo's want to print certain stuff, let them start their own paper'. Well, if Gina wants to push certain views, let her start her own paper.

 

[evand]

Dazz, 99% of your posts are about what you'd like to see happen rather than what actually is.

And i'll leave this thread right there.

 

[Dazz]

Not a valid comparison in this case.

I think it's valid for every business - bar none. For some reason media companies like to think of themselves as special.....I reckon Fairfax is about to find out they are not.

I read that GR intends on supplanting the Hungry Jacks boss Jack Cowin into the board as well. It sounds as if the current board members are about as strong as a wilting lettuce leaf. Gina and Jack'll sort 'em out.

She's buying with the (seeming) intention to change things such that the papers become a soundboard for her views.

Who knows - she hasn't said. She may see the share price languishing at the 60c level and have decided to get a few board members in there with some proper business acumen and turn the flailing business around.

 

[Dazz]

Dazz, 99% of your posts are about what you'd like to see happen rather than what actually is.

Thank you. I would hope that ratio was about right, I'd prefer it to be slightly higher, but 99% will do for now.

I'm a very forward thinking long range type of chap, not one to dwell on the past or the present. Much better to have your sights trained at the front of the ship - seeking both opportunity and wary of peril.

I think most people are like this though. They decide what views they support, then try their best to prosecute that agenda to the best of their ability.

The reality of life however dictates that some have a greater ability to prosecute their agenda than otherwise. Life was always thus, and always will be.

 

[Aaron_C]

Well, if Gina wants to push certain views, let her start her own paper.

Buying an existing one would be the same thing as starting her own one.

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

Who knows - she hasn't said. She may see the share price languishing at the 60c level and have decided to get a few board members in there with some proper business acumen and turn the flailing business around.

Maybe so! Only time will tell.

Do you think they'll serve Hungry Jacks in the cafeteria for the ten employees left after the purge?

 

[Dazz]

Do you think they'll serve Hungry Jacks in the cafeteria for the ten employees left after the purge?

Dunno and don't care what they eat, but obviously if there are only 10 people left, it proves once and for all that the job market isn't that tight. If Australians can easily afford to quit a well paying job, then that speaks volumes.

The news (TV and radio) a few days ago were making a big song and dance about Fairfax shedding 1,900 jobs. Do you now contend that the majority would happily walk out the door if a new boss came in and acted like a boss, rather than the workers set the agenda ??

I was under the impression the SE corner of the country was screaming out for jobs and the economy was RS. It seems not if most of the Fairfax journo's would happily quit their jobs.

As you say, only time will tell. I suspect it's more filibustering. It looks as if the workers run the show at present and like any party who holds the upper hand, they ain't gonna give that power up without a struggle. My experience with those sorts of things however is, that a few high profile militant individuals go wailing all the way and leave, but the vast majority need the work and so knuckle down and keep the boss happy to keep their job. I'd be surprised if this is any different.

 

[Ideo]

The issue is she refuses to sign the charter to become a member of the board.

This states that she will not use her position to influence editorial position.

This is a long standing Fairfax position. Her arrogance means she doesn't see it as applicable to her, unlike other individuals.

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

D It looks as if the workers run the show at present

Print media is a service industry, as such those that 'run the show' are the people that buy newspapers. Murdoch understands this perfectly. The consumer will ultimately have the final say as to the future of Fairfax.

 

[cu@thetop]

A lot of elderly folk (30+)

Now hang on a minute you young upstart....

I distinctly remember in '92 when Kerry Packer pulled the plug on Doug Mulray's one-off "Australia's Naughtiest Home Videos" show and immediately replaced it with a re-run episode of Cheers. Now that was a good move.

A low point in modern TV history. I was watching the episode when it happened and laughing myself sick. It was a runaway ratings winner so when Kez-dog shut it down was he doing the shareholders a favour?

Print media is a service industry, as such those that 'run the show' are the people that buy newspapers. Murdoch understands this perfectly. The consumer will ultimately have the final say as to the future of Fairfax.

And here it is. Gina may own and cull,but if it is a crap product it will raise no revenue from me.


I do take on board Dazz's suggestion that workers shouldn't be running the show when they have no vested interest outside of their weekly wage but I want some semblance of independence in the product. I would never ask a worker to do something unethical or unsafe. Regrettaby there are many Utilitarian bosses who will and insist on it in fact. Hence the creation of unions.

 

[Dazz]

I do take on board Dazz's suggestion that workers shouldn't be running the show

Yeah, it wasn't really a suggestion - more like stating the bleedin' obvious.

I've never seen a company, ever, where the bosses have no say in what the workers do and/or produce.

I was under the impression the ultimate decision making body of any company was the Board of Directors. That last word was 'Directors'. I think that means their only task is to 'direct' the organisation in absolutely everything that the company does.

If the Board of Directors don't direct the company, then who does ??

...and what do they call themselves at Fairfax - the Board of non-interfering tea sipping and scone and jam munching non-influential numpties ??

I reckon the luvvies down at Fairfax are just about to get a huge wake up call about how hard nosed business actually operates.....and I reckon the new Board will call the bluff of all those who say they won't buy the product on offer.

We'll see.


Someone / somewhere along that Fairfax food chain...someone is actually 'in-charge'. It makes no sense that it would be 4 or 5 or 8 steps down the food chain.

Why isn't the Chairman of the Board in charge ??

Was young Warwick that weak livered 25 years ago he not only gave up and squandered the family empire, but also gave up all semblance of control to some militant journo's ??