International
Scale is important; has to be focused right: Fox executive chair & CEO Lachlan Murdoch
Mumbai: Addressing analysts during a conference call to announce the company’s Q1’23 results, Fox executive chair & CEO Lachlan Murdoch spoke about the importance of scale. Fox’s assets include the juggernaut Fox News. Fox posted revenue of $3.19 billion, up 5 per cent a year ago.
“Look, I think you know the scale; it has to be focused right. Scale is important, and what we’ve seen amongst our media peers over the last few years is that our peers are getting bigger through mergers and acquisitions (M&A), and so I think scale lends flexibility in many ways. So, we continue to grow our business, we continue to look at M&A and be very disciplined in how we look at it, but we also do look at the importance of scale, particularly over the next couple of years when, I think, opportunities in the marketplace will emerge. They have the scale to be flexible, and how we deal with them will be important,” he said.
In terms of a potential reunion of Fox and News Corporation, Murdoch declined to take questions. “As has been made public, both Fox and News Corporation have formed separate special committees to explore a potential combination following letters received from my father, Rupert Murdoch, and the Murdoch Family Trust. For a combination transaction to proceed, it will need the approval of both special committees and a supportive vote by the majority of the minority non-affiliated shareholders of each company.”
He added, “The special committee has not made any determination at this time, and there can be no certainty that the company will engage in such a transaction. Given the importance of the work of the special committees, I’m not in a position to take any questions on the proposed transaction at this time.”
Murdoch pointed out that the company’s fiscal year is off to a good start. “The September quarter results once again highlight the strength of our leadership brands, and we are just getting started on what promises to be a banner year for Fox. We are encouraged by the operating trends across the portfolio and the early returns on our digital investments. When paired with our strong balance sheet and low leverage, the Fox story remains a differentiated one amongst its media peers. And while we continue to be mindful of how the macroeconomic environment evolves during the months ahead, Fox remains well positioned to navigate and outperform through any potential uncertainty.”
Talking about the ad scene, he said that the ad growth in the quarter was driven by strong pricing at Fox News and Fox Sports. “Record first quarter political revenues at the local stations, and in a quarter where industry-wide digital advertising revenues appear to have been under pressure, to post standout revenue growth of almost 30 per cent.”
He added, however, that the company recognises that there is a lot of commentary around advertising headwinds as the macro environment evolves. “Yes, the broader national advertising market is looking more fluid compared to the time of our last earnings call. However, the macro impact is not uniform across our verticals.”
“We have observed some softness in the linear entertainment scatter marketplace. Remember that Fox does not over-index to network entertainment. So, any impact there is, is nominal to us and has been more than offset by the digital entertainment strength delivered by Tubi,” he went on.
Murdoch said, “Additionally, despite the economic headwinds, we are seeing continued strength across our linear news and sports portfolios, led by the pharmaceutical, restaurant, and streaming categories. These dynamics underscore a flight to quality, and the importance of our focus on live content, with over two-thirds of our advertising revenue generated by live sports and news.”
Fox News, he noted, turned in another stellar performance, finishing the fiscal first quarter as the number one channel on cable and the third most viewed network in Weekday Prime in all of television, behind only NBC and CBS.
LOS ANGELES: Acting has never been an easy profession, but in recent years, it has acquired a new existential anxiety. Artificial intelligence can now mimic faces, clone voices and, in theory at least, speak any language it is fed. The fear that actors may soon be replaced by algorithms no longer belongs exclusively to science fiction. And yet, despite the rise of digital inauthenticity, some performers remain stubbornly resistant to replacement. The reason is not celebrity, nor even talent. It is language.
On paper, this should not be a problem. AI can translate. It can imitate accents. It can string together grammatically correct sentences in dozens of languages. But acting, inconveniently, is not about grammatical correctness. It is about meaning, and meaning is where AI still falters.
Machine translation offers a cautionary tale. Google Translate, now powered by neural AI, has improved markedly since its debut in 2006. It can manage menus, emails and airport signage with impressive efficiency. What it struggles with, however, are the moments that matter most: idioms, metaphors, irony, and cultural shorthand. Ask it to translate a joke, a threat disguised as politeness, or a line heavy with emotional subtext, and it begins to unravel. Acting lives precisely in those gaps.
This matters because film language is rarely literal. Scripts, particularly in independent cinema, rely on figurative speech and symbolism to convey what characters cannot say outright. Pedro Almodóvar’s Volver is a useful example. The film’s recurring use of red operates on multiple levels: grief, desire, repression, liberation, and memory. These meanings are inseparable from the Spanish cultural context and emotional cadence. A translation may convey the words, but not the weight they carry. An AI-generated performance might replicate the sound, but not the sense.
This is where multilingual actors gain their edge. Performers such as Penélope Cruz and Sofía Vergara do not simply switch between languages; they move between cultural logics. Their fluency allows them to inhabit characters without flattening them for international consumption. Language, for them, is not an accessory but a structuring force.
Beyond European cinema, this becomes even more pronounced. Languages such as Hindi, Arabic and Mandarin are spoken by hundreds of millions of people and underpin vast cinematic traditions. As global audiences grow more interconnected, the demand for authenticity increases rather than diminishes. Viewers can tell when a performance has been filtered through approximation. Subtle errors, misplaced emphasis, and an unnatural rhythm break the illusion.
There is also a practical dimension. Multilingualism expands opportunity. Sofía Vergara has spoken openly about how learning English enabled her to work beyond Colombia and access Hollywood roles. But this movement is not a one-way export of talent into English-speaking cinema. Multilingual actors carry stories, styles and sensibilities back with them, enriching multiple industries at once.
Cinema has always thrived on such hybridity. Denzel Washington’s performances, for instance, draw on the cultural realities of growing up African American in the United States, while also reflecting stylistic influences from classic Hollywood and Westerns. His work demonstrates how identity and influence intersect on screen. Multilingual actors extend this intersection further, embodying multiple cultural frameworks simultaneously.
At times, linguistic authenticity is not merely artistic but ethical. Films that confront historical trauma, such as Schindler’s List, rely on language to anchor their moral seriousness. When Jewish actors perform in German, the choice is not incidental. Language becomes a site of memory and confrontation. It is difficult to imagine an automated voice carrying that responsibility without hollowing it out.
This is why claims that AI heralds the death of language miss the point. Language is not just a delivery system for information. It is a repository of history, humour, power and pain. Fluency is not only about knowing what to say, but when to hesitate, when to understate, and when to let silence do the work. These are not technical problems waiting to be solved; they are human instincts shaped by lived experience.
AI may one day improve its grasp of metaphor and nuance. It may even learn to sound convincing. But acting is not about sounding convincing; it is about being convincing. Until algorithms can acquire memory, cultural inheritance and emotional intuition, multilingual actors will remain irreplaceable. AI may learn to speak. But it cannot yet learn to mean.
In an industry increasingly tempted by shortcuts, language remains stubbornly resistant to automation. And for actors who can move between worlds, linguistic, cultural, and emotional, that resistance is not a weakness, but a quiet, enduring advantage.
