Public companies they may technically be, but blood ties overrule everything in the Murdoch empire, including any semblance of modern corporate governance principles.

The return of the prodigal son Lachlan - after years of mixed success on his own - to sit beside his father as joint chair of the two global media arms begs the question of what else he will bring to the table.

In particular, all eyes now are on the future ownership of Network Ten, of which Murdoch junior owns 8.8 per cent.

A mooted change to Australia's cross media ownership rules by the Coalition, which would allow mergers between newspaper and free-to-air television companies, has for months sparked takeover talk that News would move on Ten Holdings, speculation that will only be amplified by these events.

Lachlan Murdoch stood aside from Ten overnight, elevating the highly regarded former advertising and News Ltd executive Hamish McLennan into the dual role of chief executive and chairman.

The struggling television company, which now relies on the goodwill of its four major shareholders - Lachlan Murdoch, James Packer, Gina Rinehart and Bruce Gordon - has floundered in recent years as a revolving door of chief executives and a confused strategy has seen audience numbers dwindle and advertisers abandon the network.

A Ten spokesman wasted little time this morning, issuing a statement that, rather than clarifying the situation, merely added to the intrigue.

"At this stage, no one from Ten will be doing any media," he said, in the time-honoured tradition of media companies.

It is unlikely the elevation of both Murdoch sons will be greeted with wild applause in New York.

In recent years, a rump of angry shareholders has mounted several campaigns to overthrow company founder Rupert Murdoch, particularly in the aftermath of the UK 2011 phone hacking scandal.

James Murdoch, until that point the heir apparent after years of proving himself a talented executive and overcoming whispers of nepotism, was forced to relinquish control of News International, the structure that owned Murdoch's UK media interests.

With the UK courts still mulling over the lurid details of the hacking scandal, it could be argued that this was not the most opportune time for the corporate rehabilitation of James, who is assuming the role of co-chief operating officer at 21st Century Fox.

The hacking scandal still reverberates through News. It ultimately led to a split in the company structure last year which resulted in the newspaper assets housed in News and the pay television and movie business residing in 21st Century Fox.

That split appeared to be at odds with Rupert Murdoch's long held belief in the benefits of a unified media organisation where profitable units propped up those that retained prestige and influence.

Take this quote from an interview in the Financial Times in 2002: ''We start with the written word. Then we get to TV, originally with the idea that it will protect the advertising base, and it then progresses into a medium of its own with news, programs and ideas.

''You then look at TV and you say: 'Look, we don't want to just buy programs from a Hollywood studio, we'd better have one'.''

One thing that hasn't changed since the split was the Murdoch family's cast iron grip on control. Despite ownership of less than 15 per cent of the empire, the family controls 40 per cent of the votes.

It is a structure that has allowed Murdoch senior to overcome opposition and ignore criticism of the many mistakes he has made during the company's phenomenal growth.

Murdoch's expensive plunge into the fickle world of social media flopped when he blew $550 million on MySpace. That, however, paled into insignificance with the $5 billion purchase of the Wall Street Journal at the top of the market in 2007.

The blood ties extend beyond his sons. In 2011 News Corporation bought UK television production company Shine, the producer of hit shows such as Biggest Loser, MasterChef and One Born Every Minute.

On the surface it seemed a perfect fit, except that Shine was owned by Elisabeth Murdoch, who was catapulted into the company's senior ranks.

Then there was the price. Given its minimal earnings, the $675 million price tag caused an uproar with several investors launching legal action that accused Murdoch senior of treating News like a "wholly owned family candy store".

That was three years ago. Shareholder ire is unlikely to be assuaged by today's appointments.