NationStates Jolt Archive


Murdoch "News Corp" to Buy Wall Street Journal

Myrmidonisia
06-06-2007, 13:30
Maybe...I doubt any of you have heard the rumblings, but it's a distinct possibility.

I think the WSJ is the only paper that is sold because of its editorial page. I know that's the first thing I turn to every morning. The rest of the news is targeted in particular areas and I do read what interests me. But it's the editorials that get my closest attention.

Now the Bancroft family, who has owned the paper for the last century, is considering selling it to "News Corp". Of all the family-owned newspapers, they have certainly had the most hands-off approach to the WSJ. If you look at the Grahams or the Sulzbergers at the Post and Times, respectively, the members of those families run those papers. The Bancrofts have hired good editors and let them go.

I hope this isn't my obituary for the WSJ. Murdoch doesn't do anything different than other owners, but that's far more meddling than the current owners of the Journal have ever done. My worry isn't that the Journal will have a bias on the editorial page -- it already does. It is summed up best by a former editor, William Grimes.

"On our editorial page we make no pretense of walking down the middle of the road. Our comments and interpretations are made from a definite point of view. We believe in the individual, in his wisdom and his decency. We oppose all infringements on individual rights, whether they stem from attempts at private monopoly, labor union monopoly or from an overgrowing government. People will say we are conservative or even reactionary. We are not much interested in labels but if we were to choose one, we would say we are radical."

My worst fear is that the Journal will end up like a Gannett paper. With a middle of the road policy that results in an unintelligible mess on the editorial pages. I doubt that would happen under Murdoch, but I would hate to see any compromise of the journalistic integrity that sets the Wall Street Journal apart from all other papers.
UN Protectorates
06-06-2007, 13:38
Murdoch corrupts everything he touches.
Newer Burmecia
06-06-2007, 14:51
Murdoch corrupts everything he touches.
Like the Midas touch, but made of shite.:p

Personally, I don't like having so much media ownership in the hands of one individual or company across so many nations. I think it's good for a healthy democracy to have as many media outlets separately owned as possible, with their own editorial opinion.
Siap
06-06-2007, 14:57
My fear is that Murdoch will turn it into something that fellates Bush or the so-called "conservatives".

I've always enjoyed its classical liberal attitdude.
Regressica
06-06-2007, 15:44
Maybe...I doubt any of you have heard the rumblings, but it's a distinct possibility.

Are you being sarcastic? It's been in the news for weeks. Here in Australia at least when it was revealed News Corp wanted to buy it, it made all the news bulletins.

Anyway, anything that gives News Limited/News Corp more power is bad in my book, as I hold journalistic integrity close to my heart, and don't believe the reassurances Murdock has given.
Andaluciae
06-06-2007, 15:47
From what I've heard, the Bancroft's think the idea is just plain terrible, and fully oppose it.
Myrmidonisia
06-06-2007, 15:49
From what I've heard, the Bancroft's think the idea is just plain terrible, and fully oppose it.
I've read that they are the key. He's offered them an incredible amount per share for their DJ holdings.

As an analogy, you might like your house, but if someone offered you double or triple the market value for it, you'd at least consider the offer...
JMLP
06-06-2007, 15:49
Wall Street Journal too liveral for my taste. I don't exactly like Bush and don't agree with everything Murdoch say, but he better choice!
Myrmidonisia
06-06-2007, 15:50
Wall Street Journal too liveral for my taste. I don't exactly like Bush and don't agree with everything Murdoch say, but he better choice!
Well not everyone can counted on to support individual rights and a free market, I suppose.
Jello Biafra
06-06-2007, 16:48
My worst fear is that the Journal will end up like a Gannett paper. With a middle of the road policy that results in an unintelligible mess on the editorial pages. I doubt that would happen under Murdoch, but I would hate to see any compromise of the journalistic integrity that sets the Wall Street Journal apart from all other papers.I don't think you need to worry about that. Murdoch is hardly middle of the road.
Free Soviets
06-06-2007, 17:01
I think the WSJ is the only paper that is sold because of its editorial page. I know that's the first thing I turn to every morning. The rest of the news is targeted in particular areas and I do read what interests me. But it's the editorials that get my closest attention.

*shock and amazement*
OcceanDrive
06-06-2007, 17:16
I think the WSJ is the only paper that is sold because of its editorial page. I know that's the first thing I turn to every morning. The rest of the news is targeted in particular areas and I do read what interests me. But it's the editorials that get my closest attention.Now that you mention it..

I think that is why I "buy" this Forum -every day- Its because I wanna read the Editorials..
Soleichunn
06-06-2007, 18:35
Murdoch corrupts everything he touches.

Yet again, Australia is sorry for unleashing that bastard on the world.

Now that you mention it..

I think that is why I "buy" this Forum -every day- Its because I wanna read the Editorials..

To tell you the truth I like newspaper editorials though don't take most of them seriously.
New Granada
06-06-2007, 18:53
The Times has been publishing stories on this for a few weeks, Murdoch meeting with the Bancrofts, &c.

Would be a serious mar on the Journal's credibility if it were to fall into that tabloideer's hands.

Let's hope the Bancroft family knows better.
Frisbeeteria
06-06-2007, 20:05
He's offered them an incredible amount per share for their DJ holdings.

As an analogy, you might like your house, but if someone offered you double or triple the market value for it, you'd at least consider the offer...

I've seen their house. I know where they live. When somebody made them an offer that would have quintupled their investment, they turned around and bought THEIR property for vast sums to prevent the new development from interfering with their view. Draw your own inference.

There are people to whom money is a goal, and people to whom money is a tool. The owners of the WSJ are in the latter category. They may have reasons to sell, but getting rich[er] isn't high on the list.
Myrmidonisia
06-06-2007, 21:04
I've seen their house. I know where they live. When somebody made them an offer that would have quintupled their investment, they turned around and bought THEIR property for vast sums to prevent the new development from interfering with their view. Draw your own inference.

There are people to whom money is a goal, and people to whom money is a tool. The owners of the WSJ are in the latter category. They may have reasons to sell, but getting rich[er] isn't high on the list.
They didn't get to the position that they hold by ignoring money, either. $5 billion is an awful big tool.

Time will tell.
Prumpa
06-06-2007, 21:06
I wonder if he'll now spin off CNBC once he gets Dow Jones's share. Fox is working on a financial channel, and it'd be weird to have two competitors in the same corporation.