Media mogul Rupert Murdoch is engaged in a legal battle against three of his children to ensure his eldest son, Lachlan Murdoch, remains at the helm of his media empire, according to a report by the New York Times on Wednesday.

Murdoch is seeking to increase Lachlan’s voting power within the Murdoch Family Trust, aiming to secure a majority that would prevent his siblings from challenging his leadership, the report revealed, citing a sealed court document.

The Reno, Nevada-based family trust manages the family's shares in Murdoch's extensive collection of television networks and newspapers, which are held through News Corp and Fox Corp. Lachlan Murdoch currently serves as chairman of News Corp, which publishes the Wall Street Journal and the Sun, and as chairman and chief executive of Fox Corp.

At present, the trust's eight votes are split: four are controlled by Rupert Murdoch, while the remaining four are controlled by his four children from his first two marriages. Murdoch's youngest daughters, Chloe and Grace, from his third marriage to Wendi Deng, do not have voting rights within the trust.

In court, Murdoch argues that Lachlan should lead the company without interference from his more politically moderate siblings—James, Elisabeth, and Prudence Murdoch. He believes that maintaining a conservative editorial stance is crucial for the company's commercial value and the interests of all his heirs.

Fox Corp, News Corp, and Murdoch's lawyer did not respond to requests for comment, and the lawyer representing the three children involved in the legal dispute could not be reached immediately.

Fox News remains the leading U.S. cable news network, wielding significant influence in American politics, particularly among Republicans who value its conservative-leaning audience.

Murdoch expressed concerns that a "lack of consensus" among his four children could affect the strategic direction of both companies, potentially leading to changes in editorial policy and content. He seeks to grant Lachlan Murdoch "permanent" and "exclusive" control over the company, as highlighted in the court's decision.