Kiss the Wall Street Journal goodbye

[tristano's ghost]

As a credible newspaper, that is:

Murdoch succeeds in effort to buy Dow Jones

Don't know if anybody else read the article in the New Yorker this past week, but it foreshadowed RM's success. Might surprise some, but firebreathing left-liberal that I am, I've enjoyed the WSJ's reporting since my teen journalism-student years (the reprehensible editorial page is another matter). Now it will all be Fox-ified and nothing nasty will ever be said about China, etc.. Mr. Murdoch will make heaps of money, I'm sure, but you can kiss the WSJ's credibility goodbye.

[Scott Dolan]

I think the article in The Economist a month or so back covered this hysteria about Murdoch gobbling up the WSJ with a pretty level headed approach. See what you think:


http://www.economist.com/opinion/dis...ory_id=9116969

[horton]

Hi Scott,

While I enjoyed this article and agree with many of its sentiments, Mr Murdoch taking over WSJ still makes me incredibly nervous. To me it is a screaming flag that shows journalism, well media reporting, will continue to loose quality and merit. It is a very sad state of affairs.........

[tippy]

Do you think it is the influence of Hollywood that has ruined our news (print and tv)? We need some anti-celebrity/celebrity coverage celebrities to speak out against the base interest of gossip re famous people. You know how smokers are pariahs now; we need to make pariahs out of Hollywood gossip followers because it's ruining the minds of the people and our world.

um, yeah, that's the ticket.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by horton

Hi Scott,

While I enjoyed this article and agree with many of its sentiments, Mr Murdoch taking over WSJ still makes me incredibly nervous. To me it is a screaming flag that shows journalism, well media reporting, will continue to loose quality and merit. It is a very sad state of affairs.........

Can you expand on this a little more? Why do you feel that way?

Oh, and what part of Florida do you live in?

[Pete C]

Scott Dolan is fair and balanced.

[Dr Dave]

I think The Economist's editorialists are being naive. Murdoch's modus operandi is to please people in power, so they'll let him run his businesses unfettered by regulation. I don't think Journal reporting will be any less "accurate" under Murdoch, but based on previous performance, you can be sure he'll want his editors to shy away from stories that are potentially embarrassing to the governments whose favor he needs to do business. Just as Fox has more or less stopped coverage of the Iraq war, so will the Journal back away from stories Murdoch finds politically unpalatable.

Unless someone has some inside scoop on Murdoch suddenly changing his business practices, I'd say the WSJ's investigative reporting goose is cooked once Murdoch takes over. Why, I bet they even stop talking about Whitewater--Rupert and Big Bill being such good buddies these days.

[Scott Dolan]

C'mon! How much investigative journalism do they exhibit these days anyway? That's mostly left to the NYT and the WaPo.

[guy]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

I think The Economist's editorialists are being naive. Murdoch's modus operandi is to please people in power, so they'll let him run his businesses unfettered by regulation. I don't think Journal reporting will be any less "accurate" under Murdoch, but based on previous performance, you can be sure he'll want his editors to shy away from stories that are potentially embarrassing to the governments whose favor he needs to do business. Just as Fox has more or less stopped coverage of the Iraq war, so will the Journal back away from stories Murdoch finds politically unpalatable.

Unless someone has some inside scoop on Murdoch suddenly changing his business practices, I'd say the WSJ's investigative reporting goose is cooked once Murdoch takes over. Why, I bet they even stop talking about Whitewater--Rupert and Big Bill being such good buddies these days.

I'm inclined to agree with Dr Dave.

On the one hand, paranoia that the WSJ will turn into another branch of Fox News is (probably) misplaced. The business world audience that reads the WSJ prizes accuracy too much, whereas the cable news audience does not.

On the other hand, I'm not aware of any Murdoch-owned media where he doesn't exert editorial influence.

Guy

[guy]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

C'mon! How much investigative journalism do they exhibit these days anyway? That's mostly left to the NYT and the WaPo.

A fair amount, though obviously that's only a small fraction of their content.

Guy

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by guy

I'm inclined to agree with Dr Dave.

On the one hand, paranoia that the WSJ will turn into another branch of Fox News is (probably) misplaced. The business world audience that reads the WSJ prizes accuracy too much, whereas the cable news audience does not.

On the other hand, I'm not aware of any Murdoch-owned media where he doesn't exert editorial influence.

Guy

But that plays back into my point, Guy. Editorially speaking they are already quite conservative. So much so that I prefer the NYT editorials. And I'm a conservative fer christs sake! So I really can't see Murdoch taking it to a "worse" level.

[guy]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

But that plays back into my point, Guy. Editorially speaking they are already quite conservative. So much so that I prefer the NYT editorials. And I'm a conservative fer christs sake! So I really can't see Murdoch taking it to a "worse" level.

Scott, I think the concern is about the "news"/"content" part of the WSJ, not about the editorial page.

Guy

[Scott Dolan]

I understand that. But investors have to be kept abreast of political events because they can play into, and have huge effects on, financial markets.

If investors aren't given trustworthy news, they could lose lots-o-money. That, in turn, would cause the WSJ to lose the same. That's not a risk I think Murdoch is willing to take.

THAT would be naive. Something Mr. Murdoch certainly isn't.

[Paul B]

In the end, I'm not sure Murdoch cares about the business end of the Journal. If he loses subscribers it won't matter to him; the title is a prestige buy for him and will be the backbone of his new financial network. I'm certain that over time the quality of the journalism will suffer, because he will inevitably get his hands in the mix to kill stories and affect coverage. In any case, the mere perception of that should be enough to taint the Journal. Once it's a officially a Murdoch paper, I'll be switching to the FT.

Funny, though; I don't see any mention of this deal in any major media outlet, and I'll assume it's not happening until I do so.

[Paul B]

From CBS Marketwatch.

****

Dow Jones denies it's forged News Corp. deal
London publication says Wall Street Journal parent has pact with Murdoch

By Angela Moore & Russ Britt, MarketWatch
Last Update: 6:02 PM ET Jul 6, 2007

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Dow Jones & Co. on Friday denied a report in a London financial publication that its board and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. have come to an agreement on terms of a takeover for $5 billion, or $60 a share.

Citing sources acting for the Dow Jones (DJ) board, The Business said talks have been completed and the board is "confident" the terms of the deal will be accepted within the next few days by the Bancroft family, whose Class B shares give its members control of Dow Jones, and will be announced formally next week.

"An article published on [The Business's Web site] this morning stating that an agreement in principle has been reached for the sale of Dow Jones & Company to News Corp. is incorrect," Dow Jones said in a news release. News Corp. (NWS)
representatives were not available for comment.

The $5 billion deal has a legally enforceable agreement with Murdoch, the British report said, that is expected to guarantee the "integrity and independence" of The Wall Street Journal, the flagship newspaper of Dow Jones.

Under the terms of this agreement, according to the report, News Corp. will be able to hire and fire the top editors and publishers, but a "nominally independent" five-person committee will have the ability to veto these decisions.

Murdoch and Dow Jones will jointly determine the membership of the panel, which will have the power to choose its successors, the report said. This was a key point and a concession to the Bancrofts, who are grappling with how to preserve the Journal's "editorial integrity" and have come under fire for considering a sale to Murdoch, the report said.

The Bancrofts have held extensive talks with lawyers as they've worked to satisfy themselves about the strength and durability of the editorial safeguards, the report said.
The Dow Jones board and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. are trying to mitigate the concerns of some members of the Bancroft family that a sale to News Corp., owner of splashy tabloids and Fox News, among other outlets, could compromise the editorial integrity of the Journal.

The Bancrofts originally rejected News Corp.'s offer to buy the company for $5 billion, or $60 a share. But they have since reconsidered the proposal, disclosed May 1, which represented a 65% premium to Dow Jones shares at the time.

Shares of Dow Jones -- which is the parent company of MarketWatch, the publisher of this report -- rose 2.1% to $59.07 at the close Friday.

[Monte Smith]

You all need to read David Hare's original attack on Murdoch, 1985's Pravda, where our erstwhile mogul is cast as a White South African, because in 1985 nothing was more evil and obviously Rupert Murdoch is the depth of evil, even if he isn't a South African. Very amusing. And naturally his journalistic ethos is compared, disfavorably, to the state run organs of Communist Russia.

[horton]

Scott,

South West Florida, because you asked, but this guy has a good point

"I think The Economist's editorialists are being naive. Murdoch's modus operandi is to please people in power, so they'll let him run his businesses unfettered by regulation. I don't think Journal reporting will be any less "accurate" under Murdoch, but based on previous performance, you can be sure he'll want his editors to shy away from stories that are potentially embarrassing to the governments whose favor he needs to do business. Just as Fox has more or less stopped coverage of the Iraq war, so will the Journal back away from stories Murdoch finds politically unpalatable."

"Unless someone has some inside scoop on Murdoch suddenly changing his business practices, I'd say the WSJ's investigative reporting goose is cooked once Murdoch takes over. Why, I bet they even stop talking about Whitewater--Rupert and Big Bill being such good buddies these days."

I agree with this guy, I was a journalist for many years, Murdoch was always the pole about to be up my ass, journalism used to be respected years ago, and now it is a joke. RM has a great deal to do with that. The fact is, if one guy has a monopoly...its never going to be fair journalism.

[Scott Dolan]

Fair enough points.

I grew up in Port Charlotte, BTW.

[horton]

Port Charlotte? Little further up than me, I am not looking forward to another sticky, rainy day weather wise...though I have to say you cannot beat a day at the beach in my eyes.

[tristano's ghost]

Too bad--I never could stand the editorial page, but I've been reading the news & business sections since I was an undergrad. No more:

WSJ: Murdoch clinches votes for DJ deal
By SETH SUTEL, AP Business Writer

NEW YORK - Rupert Murdoch's bid for Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones & Co. appears to have won enough support from the company's controlling shareholders to ensure its passage, the newspaper reported Tuesday.

The Journal said, quoting unnamed people familiar with the situation, that Bancroft family members representing 32 percent of the company's vote had agreed to the deal. A family spokesman declined to comment.

Murdoch's News Corp. must still decide whether it is comfortable with that level of support in order to proceed. With some public shareholders likely to abstain, News Corp. wants a solid majority of votes committed to the deal.

Dow Jones shares were already sharply higher Tuesday on hopes that a deal was close, and were getting closer and closer to Murdoch's offering price of $60 a share, indicating growing confidence the deal will go through. In early afternoon trading, Dow Jones stock rose $6.21, or 12 percent at $57.77.

The Bancroft family controls 64 percent of the company's shareholder vote. Given that many of the public shareholders representing 29 percent of Dow Jones' vote are likely to support a deal, Murdoch only needs about half of the Bancroft family's block in order to win.

News Corp. has said it would only proceed if it felt there was enough support among the Bancrofts, but it hasn't specified what that level is. A News Corp. spokesman said Monday that the company was "highly unlikely" to proceed with the deal if support from the family remained at the level reported at that time — about 29 percent.

News Corp.'s board is scheduled to meet Tuesday at 4 p.m. ET, and a decision to seal the deal could come at that time. Dow Jones' board is set to meet later Tuesday, at 7 p.m.

Members of the Bancroft family, which has controlled Dow Jones for a century, had a 5 p.m. deadline Monday to tell the family's lead trustee how they would vote on Murdoch's offer.

Negotiations were apparently continuing over other matters in an attempt to convince holdout Bancroft votes to sign on to the deal, The Wall Street Journal reported. The paper said a proposal under discussion would have News Corp. pay the Bancroft family's advisory fees — which could total at least $30 million — if it received the support of at least one of two key holdout shareholders.

Representatives of News Corp., Dow Jones and the Bancroft family all declined to comment on the continuing negotiations on Tuesday.

The Bancrofts are a diverse clan and their voting interest in the company is held through a complex series of privately held trusts, making the outcome difficult to predict.

Over the past few weeks investors have been steadily pushing Dow Jones shares below the $60 price that Murdoch has offered, reflecting increasing doubts about the deal going through.

The Bancroft family has been deeply divided over whether to sell to Murdoch, largely over concerns that his management style could affect the papers' coverage.

Murdoch says any concerns about corporate meddling in the Journal's news coverage are unwarranted. News Corp. has agreed to create a committee that would have to sign off on any decision to hire or fire top editors at the paper.

In a lengthy letter to fellow family members last week, Bancroft descendant Crawford Hill urged them to vote for a sale, saying the family hadn't taken an active enough role in overseeing Dow Jones and was now "paying the price for our passivity over the past 25 years."

Dow Jones' board has tentatively approved the deal, and the final decision now rests with the Bancrofts. Besides several Bancroft family members, including Dow Jones director Christopher Bancroft, Murdoch's bid is also being opposed by former board member Jim Ottaway Jr., whose family controls 7 percent of the shareholder vote.

[rollhead]

Another victory for the right-wing and their "libertarian" fellow travellers.

Other than the obvious fact that the WSJ has been purchased by the same guy who brought us Bill O'Reilly, no one seems to have mentioned the other obvious fact -- that this is just another nail in the coffin of the nominal notion of an "independent press."

Free Press Urges Congress and FCC to Roll Back Media Consolidation

WASHINGTON — News reports today indicate that the Bancroft family will accept Rupert Murdoch's $5 billion bid for Dow Jones and the Wall Street Journal. Media scholar and Free Press President Robert W. McChesney made the following statement:

"This takeover is bad news for anyone who cares about quality journalism and a healthy democracy. Giving any single company — let alone one controlled by Rupert Murdoch — this much media power is unconscionable.

"Media consolidation has replaced investigative journalism with infotainment, foreign affairs reporting with fluff, and local coverage with cookie-cutter content. Contrary to industry spin, emerging Internet outlets fail to offset consolidation's effect on journalism. Now Murdoch will control a broadcast network, a cable news channel and a national newspaper — three of the small handful of outlets that set our national news agenda.

"Rupert Murdoch — who has never hesitated to use his pulpit to advance his own ideological and business interests — won't change his ways. But we can change the policies that allow companies like News Corp. to dominate our media.

"We can only hope the culmination of this deal is the wake-up call Washington needs to start rolling back media consolidation. The first step is to pass new 'cross-ownership' laws that would prevent the owner of a national television network from owning a national daily newspaper.

"Murdoch's empire wouldn't exist if he hadn't been aided and abetted by Washington policymakers in Congress and at the FCC. Only by restoring public input in the policy-making process can we create the kind of diverse, accessible and independent media that journalism — and our democracy — so desperately needs."

###

[Gary Sisco]

Somehow I can't work up any grief.

[Paul B]

I can. The Journal is a great paper (editorial page notwithstanding), and if I had to read one paper a day I'd take it over the Times. It has lost a little strength over the years; a story linked at Romanesko's page points out some of the truly fantastic Journal writing from decades past, and the new, smaller format hasn't done it any favors. Still, it covers stories you won't see anywhere else, and it will be sorely missed. Supposedly Murdoch takes over in three months, and that's when I'll cease being a reader.

[Gary Sisco]

That's capitalism, baby. Grow or die. You either put your competition out of business or you absorb it.

It's what people want.

It's what they have.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Paul B

I can. The Journal is a great paper (editorial page notwithstanding), and if I had to read one paper a day I'd take it over the Times. It has lost a little strength over the years; a story linked at Romanesko's page points out some of the truly fantastic Journal writing from decades past, and the new, smaller format hasn't done it any favors. Still, it covers stories you won't see anywhere else, and it will be sorely missed. Supposedly Murdoch takes over in three months, and that's when I'll cease being a reader.

Why?

You're just automatically assuming it will change overnight. Pretty short sighted on your part, Paul. You're a smarter cat than that. What if Murdoch essentially leaves it as it is now?

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Paul B

I can. The Journal is a great paper (editorial page notwithstanding), and if I had to read one paper a day I'd take it over the Times. It has lost a little strength over the years; a story linked at Romanesko's page points out some of the truly fantastic Journal writing from decades past, and the new, smaller format hasn't done it any favors. Still, it covers stories you won't see anywhere else, and it will be sorely missed. Supposedly Murdoch takes over in three months, and that's when I'll cease being a reader.

Paul, if you get a chance, check out Ken Wells' "Floating Off The Page."

I think you would appreciate it.

[Paul B]

I don't think it will change overnight; I just won't support any publication owned by Murdoch.

I do think it will slowly morph over time in all the predicable ways: shorter, dumbed-down stories; no coverage likely to piss off the powers that Murdoch wants to appease, like the Chinese government; and as a prop for Murdoch's personal views and political positions. I'm sure many readers won't mind, and I'm sure many will. Count me among the latter.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

I think The Economist's editorialists are being naive. Murdoch's modus operandi is to please people in power, so they'll let him run his businesses unfettered by regulation. I don't think Journal reporting will be any less "accurate" under Murdoch, but based on previous performance, you can be sure he'll want his editors to shy away from stories that are potentially embarrassing to the governments whose favor he needs to do business. Just as Fox has more or less stopped coverage of the Iraq war, so will the Journal back away from stories Murdoch finds politically unpalatable.

Unless someone has some inside scoop on Murdoch suddenly changing his business practices, I'd say the WSJ's investigative reporting goose is cooked once Murdoch takes over. Why, I bet they even stop talking about Whitewater--Rupert and Big Bill being such good buddies these days.

Don't forget Rupert and Hillary.

http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=...&s=smith011606

As far as talk about Whitewater, Maureen Dowd is still here to carry the torch on that burning issue.

[Paul B]

The Times has been a disgrace on several fronts over the years--Whitewater is a prime example, as well as the run-up to the war--arguably causing more damage than the bilious ranters on the Journal's op-ed pages ever could. Maureen Dowd is hard to swallow even when I do agree with her.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

Dowd is Ann Coulter's radical left-wing cousin. Both are over the top blo-hards, yet come from opposite ends of the political spectrum.