Media and technology executives are meeting Wednesday and Thursday in New York City at a conference hosted by private equity firm Quadrangle. Note the word private.

When they meet at the Plaza, they will talk about a ton of different things that their customers, their investors and other readers want to know. I have to apologize for them because they’re not letting in any riff-raff. And that includes reporters who get paid to spend all day figuring out how these people decide what kind of entertainment you want, what kind of technology you pay them for and what deals they pursue with the money that you give them when you buy their stock. This event always excludes press, but that’s no reason not to highlight what you probably are missing because of this. After all, who wants to wait for the 8-K filing?

Some press will be allowed, but it will be an assortment of celebrity journalists who will moderate panels and, according to Peter Kafka, author of “MediaMemo” at News Corp’s AllThingsD blog, will not write about the event (I’m talking about Maria Bartiromo and David Faber of CNBC, The New Yorker’s Ken Auletta, etc).

Peter wrote two posts about this, here and here. He also issued me a challenge to sneak into the conference, but horror of horrors, I’m on a deadline that I can’t shirk any longer. So consider this an invitation from me to you to go to the Plaza and catch these guys on the way in and out of the building. It’s a fun way to spend the day, and maybe you’ll learn something interesting.

Here is the agenda, courtesy of Peter Kafka. Below that is a list of speakers. Outrage breeds corrections: I have to amend the record: The list I had posted here of topics is last year’s agenda. My mistake. The list of speakers appearing THIS year still appears below.

2009 SPEAKERS
EMILIO AZCÁRRAGA President, Board of Directors and CEO, Grupo Televisa
DENNIS CROWLEY Co-Founder, foursquare
BARRY DILLER Chairman and CEO, IAC; Chairman, Expedia, Inc. and Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc.
BRIAN DUNN CEO, Best Buy
CHARLES FORMAN Founder, OMGPOP
REED HASTINGS Founder, Chairman and CEO, Netflix
REID HOFFMAN Executive Chairman and Founder, LinkedIn Corporation
CHAD HURLEY CEO and Co-Founder, YouTube
JEFF IMMELT Chairman and CEO, GE
PAUL JACOBS Chairman and CEO, Qualcomm Incorporated
OLLI-PEKKA KALLASVUO President and CEO, Nokia
JASON KILAR CEO, Hulu
LESLIE MOONVES President and CEO, CBS Corporation
ANNE MULCAHY Chairman, Xerox Corporation
JAMES MURDOCH Chairman and Chief Executive, Europe & Asia, News Corporation
BRIAN PHILLIPS CEO and Co-Founder, Thread
DAN PORTER CEO, OMGPOP
BRIAN ROBERTS Chairman and CEO, Comcast Corporation
PAUL SAGAN President and CEO, Akamai
ERIC SCHMIDT Chairman and CEO, Google
IVAN SEIDENBERG Chairman and CEO, Verizon Communications
BIZ STONE Co-Founder, Twitter
HOWARD STRINGER Chairman, CEO and President, Sony Corporation
BEN VERWAAYEN CEO, Alcatel-Lucent
DAVID ZASLAV President and CEO, Discovery Communications

MODERATORS
MARC ANDREESSEN General Partner, Andreessen Horowitz
KEN AULETTA Author and Writer, “Annals of Communications”, The New Yorker
MARIA BARTIROMO Anchor, Closing Bell; Host & Managing Editor, Wall Street Journal Report, CNBC
JAMES CITRIN Co-Leader, Board & CEO Practice, North America, Spencer Stuart
DAVID FABER Anchor, Reporter, CNBC
MICHAEL HUBER Co-President and Managing Principal, Quadrangle Group
BECKY QUICK Co-Anchor, Squawk Box, CNBC
GEOFFREY SANDS Director & Leader, Global Media, Entertainment & Information Practice, McKinsey & Co.
JOSHUA L. STEINER Co-President and Managing Principal, Quadrangle Group
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS Anchor, This Week; Chief Washington Correspondent, ABC News

(Photo of Barry Diller, who will remain away from prying eyes at Quadrangle’s confab: Reuters)

Courtesy of Richard Siklos, Fortune’s media writer extraordinaire, who just posted this on the website on Tuesday:

“In the weeks that Rupert Murdoch was locked in unsuccessful negotiations to keep his longtime No. 2 at News Corp., the media baron also had to accept his daughter Elisabeth’s decision to turn down a spot on the company’s board, sources told Fortune.”

That’s exciting, from a soap-opera-meets-financial-news angle, because Murdoch is letting longtime right-hand man Peter Chernin leave the company, in part because the media baron has a sense of familial duty. That is to say, many people say he wants his children to take over the company. The most likely choice is his son James, 36, who is active in the company’s UK and Asian operations. Having said that, Elisabeth is no slouch in the media department.

Here’s Siklos again:

On the one hand she has a sense of duty and is one of four grown Murdoch children who will one day inherit the family’s controlling votes. But she also has a conflict of interest with Shine, the big U.K. production company she has built up over nearly seven years. Under U.K. broadcast regulations, Liz Murdoch’s presence on the News Corp. board would have rendered Shine illegible for the 25% of programming budgets that big British broadcasters like the BBC and Channel 4 are required to spend on independent production houses that have no links to broadcasters. Two people close to Murdoch said that this pool of funding represents a large proportion of Shine’s business, and that there are other advantages to being an independent producer that allow Shine to more easily retain the rights to formats it creates. Being on the News Corp. board would be a conflict for Shine because News controls British Sky Broadcasting, the big U.K. satellite TV business, as well as numerous Sky and Fox TV channels that air there. Liz Murdoch owns 63% of Shine and another big backer is Sony Pictures Entertainment, which has 20%.

Dad should understand. After all, it’s just business.

News Corp President and Chief Operating Officer Peter Chernin’s perks after he leaves News Corp at the end of June are basic compared with some legendary golden parachutes, though they’re still worth more money than I make in a year. Or 10 years for that matter.

In addition to his Fox studios production deal, Chernin’s creature comforts include 50 hours on News Corp’s jet ($1.65 million value), corporate car ($210,000 value) and possibly personal secretary services ($1.05 million value). See the proxy statement for more details.

That might not send the image of a cost-cutting corporate culture at a time when News Corp’s stock is down 70 percent and the bottom looks further away as its most can-do executive quits. Then again, maybe Chernin’s doing the right thing, all things considered. Check out this little-noticed excerpt from Chief Executive Rupert Murdoch’s memo to employees:

Achieving our ambitions will require change and renewal. So throughout 2009, I will continue to work closely with all of our companies to make sure that we are organized and resourced in the best way to take advantage of this extraordinary point in time. We will press our advantages and invest in our great franchises. And, of course, we will keep our eyes on big prizes, some of which may arise only once in a generation. [Emphasis ours -- ed.]

Wait a minute. Didn’t he already do that with The Wall Street Journal and its parent company Dow Jones? What’s it going to be next? Michael Wolff, who wrote the Murdoch tome “The Man Who Owns the News,” published late last year, thinks that Murdoch has it bad for The New York Times. Of course, the Times’s ruling family, led by Arthur Sulzberger Jr, has said the company and its legendary paper are not for sale.

But then again, it’s a generational issue — just like the word Murdoch uses in his memo. Younger Sulzbergers can’t be that happy that the TImes suspended the dividend that some of them depend on. Could they put enough pressure on their elders to sell? Maybe they could if Murdoch decided that some of his $5 billion would be money well spent on enticing the family with a larger-than-life offer, just like the Times. He said he’s not interested in becoming more of a “public enemy” by chasing the paper, but even media moguls are allowed to change their minds.

With investors in News Corp getting more annoyed for Murdoch’s attachment to newspapers (including the New York Post where he just axed longtime gossip columnist Liz Smith), it’s easy to imagine that Chernin — News Corp’s ambassador to Wall Street — might not be able to defend one more once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

One thing’s for sure: Just thinking about this keeps a media reporter up at night.

(Photo: Murdoch on the left, Chernin on the right. Reuters)

One has to wonder what today is like for a media chief as mogul-y as Rupert Murdoch, whose

News Corp has its hands in everything from publishing and newspapers to Internet, TV and movies. Today is the first day after News Corp President and COO Peter Chernin — who has been a critical force in News Corp’s success in movies and TV — said he was planning to leave the executive suite in June to make movies.

That leaves the 77-year-old Murdoch without his well-regarded No. 2 at a time when all media players are struggling with a dramatic advertising slowdown. That’s not good, right?

On the other hand, Chernin’s exit leaves the door open for Murdoch to personally run News Corp’s movie and TV divisions. In addition, it might open the door for Rupert Murdoch to give his son James (or perhaps Lachlan, who is not currently a part of the company) a crack at more power in the family business. For daddy Rupert, that can’t be all bad, right?

With all that on his mind, Murdoch also posted an apology related to a controversial cartoon the New York Post printed a few days ago, which many had labeled as racist, saying it likened President Barack Obama to an ape.

“Today I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted.”

“We all hold the readers of the New York Post in high regard and I promise you that we will seek to be more attuned to the sensitivities of our community.”

For what it’s worth, News Corp’s shares are up, so someone thinks these are good developments. What do you think?

Keep and eye on:

• Yahoo introduced several tools it says will help marketers target their ads more efficiently. (Reuters)
• Television viewing is at all-time high - the average American now watches more than 151 hours of TV a month. (LA Times)
• Thomson Reuters posted a stronger-than-expected quarterly profit. (Reuters)

(Photo: Reuters)

Able to use a computer? Check. High school diploma? Check. Work well with others? Check. Willing to strike a deal with Microsoft? Ummmm….

Indeed, in the hunt for the next top dog at Yahoo that last issue — whether the candidate can do a deal with Microsoft — may be the most pressing.

Since Yahoo’s announcement on Monday that Jerry Yang would step aside, the tech/media world has been abuzz with speculation about his replacement. Silicon Alley Insider is even running a terrific mock election — letting its readers vote among six candidates.

(News Corp’s Peter Chernin is one of them. Wouldn’t it be great if he got the job? It would let us spend some time chattering about what will happen over at Rupert Murdoch’s empire).

But as Anupreeta Das points out in the Reuters story, the only way Yahoo may be able to satisfy its investors is either a massive turnaround plan, which would be very difficult in this environment, or an M&A deal. And the best shot at a deal may be with Microsoft.

“Microsoft wants Yahoo’s search audience, the traffic, the clicks,” Needham & Co. analyst Mark May said. “They want to have as much as Google does. So it’s important for Microsoft to have a big presence in search and display.”

The upshot: Yahoo needs a CEO who is willing to negotiate. The trouble is that means it needs a CEO who would also be willing to possibly negotiate himself or herself right out of a job. Or go to work for Steve Ballmer. Hmmmm…

Keep an eye on:

• Dan Abrams, the former general manager of MSNBC, is launching a media-strategy firm, Abrams Research, to help business executives navigate public-relations challenges (WSJ.com)
• Procter & Gamble and Google are swapping some staffers — to help each other learn more about marketing (WSJ.com)
• Time Inc is expected to cut more than 250 from the payroll as part of an overall cost-cutting plan (NY Post)

(Photo: Reuters)

News Corp’s U.S. television network Fox is going to the Supreme Court to fight for its right to broadcast freely — whatever the Federal Communications Commission has to say about it.

Chief Operating Officer Peter Chernin will offer a preview of the network’s thinking tonight when he addresses the Media Institute, which is honoring him for his leadership on free speech. This comes in advance of the Nov. 4 court date in FCC v. Fox Television Stations.

Here’s the gist of the case, as The New York Times described it:

When Cher appeared on the Billboard Music Awards in 2002, she used a four-letter word connoting sex. The next year, on the same show, banter between Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie included that word and another obscenity. In Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, No. 07-582, the court will decide whether the F.C.C. has the power to punish broadcasters for airing “fleeting expletives.”

And here’s a bit of what Chernin plans to say (We presented the excerpts in consecutive order. Spaces indicate where we cut things out for the sake of space):

And for creators of content, if we’re doing our jobs right, we sometimes offend people. It’s that simple. And, believe me, we wrestle with that fact. We struggle with complex issues every day. Are we guilty of contributing to the vulgarization of our society or simply of mirroring it? Is it our responsibility to be the arbiters of good taste, or is it our duty to push boundaries? Is it even possible to create innovative programming for a mass audience that is diverse on every level - from age, to religious affiliation, to ethnicity?

If we are found in violation, just think about the radical ramifications for live programming - from news, to politics, to sports. In fact, to every live broadcast television event. The effect would be appalling.

But the truth is, people don’t think about defending broadcasters’ right to utter expletives in the same way they think about defending one’s right to speak critically of our government. But they should. The First Amendment is at stake in both cases.

I’ll admit: some of the content we are defending is not particularly tasteful: the expletives, the brief nudity, the carefully placed whipped cream and, of course, the pixels. I would not have allowed my own children, when they were younger, to watch some of these shows. But, I vow to fight to the end our ability to put occasionally controversial, offensive, and even tasteless content on the air.

Why? Because, if the government gets its foot in the censorship door with respect to unpopular entertainment content, it is the beginning of the steep slide toward censoring unpopular political content.

The job of protecting children lies with PARENTS. The job of the GOVERNMENT is to resist the views of interest groups with particular agendas and instead to enforce the law in a way that is consistent, fair and constitutional.

Chernin adds one other argument, like a dollop of practicality, and one that we suspect will come up in court:

Let’s step back for a minute and get some perspective on this issue. The indecency law applies only to broadcast TV: that’s a handful of channels. Over 85% of the country receives their broadcast channels through a cable, telco line or satellite signal. Sitting right next to the broadcast channels on these multichannel systems are hundreds of other channels that are not subject to the indecency law. And those other channels are just a click away on the remote control. Nor does the indecency law apply to video-on-demand, pay per view, DVDs, or the mother of all content providers: the Internet.

Ah yes, the Internet angle. The government tried for years to get that one to stick.

Talk about passing the buck.

During a panel discussion on media and entertainment at the Milken Institute Global Conference on Wednesday, former Yahoo! CEO Terry Semel swiftly deflected questions about the Internet company’s current pickle with Microsoft to his fellow panelist and Yahoo! board member Activision CEO Bobby Kotick.

Asked by moderator Dennis Kneale of CNBC how Yahoo had gotten itself in the position of being courted by Microsoft, Semel pointed to Kotick, who was sitting next to him.

“Ask the board member,” he said.

But Kotick wouldn’t bite. In fact, he said nothing at all.

Later on, Kneale tried again, asking another panelist, News Corp. President Peter Chernin, to tell Semel and Kotick what Yahoo! should do in response to Microsoft’s $44 billion bid.

“Can you tell us what Yahoo should do with itself?” Kneale pleaded.

Chernin also deferred to Kotick, who again said nothing. When pressed by Kneale to give the Yahoo board member his advice, Chernin finally gave a response that could only be characterized as diplomatic.

“I have no advice for Yahoo!, it seems to be doing just fine,” he said.

Semel gave a similarly deferential response when asked by Kneale whether News Corp. should spin off a portion of its MySpace business to the public.

“It’s a very good asset and I’m sure ultimately he will find a better way to monetize it and bring more and more advertising,” Semel said.

And they all lived happily ever after.