Murdoch’s News Corporation has for many years been a source of consternation among those concerned with activities such as aggressive pursuit, acquisition of business operations and the politically motivated reporting of its publications. It is difficult to recall the last time any media company was as closely scrutinised by the public.

For most companies, ongoing scandal might signal the demise of their brand and any opportunity to restore their reputation among its readers. However, within the private sector, it appears the public opinion matters not. Those who have faltered and failed are allowed to simply move on to their next job, unpunished.

If you find it incredible that such an occurrence might pass without an outcry, one need only look to Tony Hayward, the former CEO of BP. After seemingly falling on his own sword and resigning as CEO following the Deepwater Horizon disaster, Mr Hayward was appointed Head of Safety and Environment of Glencore International, a global commodities company producing everything from crude oil to sweet corn.

Given this, we would be forgiven for believing that such disgraced individuals are unaccountable to wider society and have license to act as they please. Furthermore, in the case of News Corp, the political need for media backing appears to have curbed any willingness to take action against Murdoch and his media empire. However, the media relies on its audiences as their primary source of revenue, directly or indirectly. Public campaigns, both here and in the USA, have put pressure on companies to pull their advertising in response to both the phone-hacking scandals and Glenn Beck’s offensive outbursts. While the extent to which these campaigns were responsible for the end of the NOTW and the Glenn Beck Show can be questioned, what cannot is that the advertisers’ decision was a reaction to the public mood.

In this, we find the only way in which News Corp may be "regulated". Where politicians worry about damage to their image caused by accusations of impinging on press freedoms, it is we who must force the issue and decide for ourselves what constitutes acceptable conduct by our press.

However, this is only possible so long as a moderating influence may provide a dissenting voice. While in Britain a third of the British press is controlled by Murdoch, it cannot be allowed to climb to the 70% seen in Australia. The sensationalist and often facile nature of the reporting by News Corp outlets is well known and often ridiculed in most broadsheets. However, given the broader circulation of News Corp’s readership, it can be difficult to counter any misinformation or misleading statements that may be made. Furthermore, as politicians may shy away from taking on the influence of this media empire, they are further disinclined to interfere in the business activities of the private sector as it runs contrary to the neoliberal approach to economics favoured by most governments.

As such, while it may appear the Rupert Murdoch and his global empire may truly have faced the "most humble day of his life", the reality may be far more unpleasant. The closure of the NOTW may have appeared to mark the beginning of the decline of News Corp; it is in fact an act of self-preservation designed to appease the public in the short term. Long term, we can only watch to see how News Corp conducts itself from here on in.

Originally published 20 September 2011.