"In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king."  I've heard this phrase many times, and never has it been truer than today.  With so  many companies fairing so poorly – revenues down, profits down, layoffs – doing better than most doesn't mean you have to do all that well. 

An example is News Corp.  The Tribune Company is bankrupt, casting doubts on the future of The Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and its other newspapers.  The New York Times company threatened to close The Boston Globe unless it received major employee concessions.  But even these won't save either the Globe or the Times as the headline "Boston Globe's obituary already written" comes from commentator Chuck Jaffe.  Newspapers are discontinuing daily circulation, slimming down, and closing

So when Marketwatch.com reports "News Corp. posts flat third-quarter profit" it sounds like a monumental success compared to its competitors.  But it does beg the question, why is News Corp. doing so much better than its brethren?  The answer lies in the multi-faceted approach News Corp. took to connecting with those who want information – and then connecting to their advertisers.  While the web sites for most newspaper companies are weak products that attract few readers (or advertisers), and the writers feed only one outlet (papers) rather than multiple outlets, News Corp. stands in stark contrast with major outlets across all media internationally.

In addition to multiple newpapers News Corp. owns multiple television stations and entire networks.  It is a major player in cable programming – including the #1 ranked cable news channel in the U.S. as well as networks across the globe. It is a leader in direct broadcast satellite with SKY,  owns multiple weekly magazines (that all have web sites), is a major player in billboards, and owns several internet properties including MySpace.com 

Across News Corp. the leadership is able to share acquisition costs for programming – including news  – and the distribution – including all forms of programming outlets.  News Corp.'s leadership did an excellent job of paying attention to market shifts.  After starting as an Australian newspaper company it moved into all these different businesses in order to be part of the evolving market landscape.  It obsessed about competitors, never fearing to enter markets others avoided – such as launching a national broadcast network in the 1980s, and taking on CNN when nobody agreed there was need for more than one 24 hour news channel.  And early in the internet era it paid up to acquire MySpace in order to be a participant in the internet's growth, not just a spectator.

The leadership at News Corp. has never been shy about Disruptions – often making itself the target of many groups.  But these Disruptions allowed News Corp. to open many White Space projects, teaching the company how to compete in rapidly changing markets

And now, as several competitors are disappearing, News Corp. is doing the best in its class.  While competitors are hopelessly mired in Whirlpools from which escape is likely impossible, News Corp. is merely "flat".  And there's a lot to be said for "flat" results when competitors from GE (owner of NBC and several other channels) to New York Times Company are seeing their poorest results in decades – or even filing bankruptcy (like Tribune).