Posted on 07/31/2007 8:08:27 AM PDT by shove_it
Dow Jones is expected to reach a definitive agreement tonight to be acquired by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., CNBC's David Faber reported.
The accord would end months of wrangling among the Bancroft family, which controls Dow Jones Dow Jones & Company IncDJ ...
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
The Bancroft family almost blew the best deal they were ever going to see.
“Chris Bancroft for example—seemed suddenly at the realization that they were going to have to pay all these banking fees said ‘Wait a second. Hey, if you pay my fees, I’ll give you my vote.’ And that may have turned it.”
With these Bancroft heirs, when it comes right down to money vs. principle, money talks and principle walks.
Oh no, WSJ is the only quality newspaper left. With Murdoch in charge it will be ruined within a year or so. Look at what has happened to some of the former British quality papers.
The Bancrofts said there opposition was for editorial integrity, but when it came to rug cutting time, they wanted more money and/or payment of their 30 million in legal fees. So much for Bancroft integrity.
Sad, or worse...
ping
CNBC is a big loser here. It has been tied in with Dow Jones. The Fox Business Channel is scheduled to debut this October & IT will be tied in with Dow Jones. In fact, this could be a major reason Murdoch wanted D-J. CNBC will have to look to Investors Business Daily or the Financial Times instead of Dow Jones.
I agree that Cnbc will be the loser and I disagree that Murdock has ruined the other papers he has bought. You might want to do a little checking.I believe he is buying the WSJ to compliment his financial channel and it is not in his best interest to harm the WSJ.
The Bancrofts by their own admission, never paid any attention to the DJ company.Their arrogance about “editorial integrity”
proved to be B-S when they got their legal bills and Murdock said he would walk.
I hope Murdoch doesn’t ruin the WSJ. My guess is that he will.
IBD is a better financial newspaper, so we will wait and see. However, politically CNBC and IBC would not mesh.
Yes, if this deal goes through, I will cancel my subscription. I am only familiar with what happened with The Times, but that history is enough to convince me that Mr. Murdoch's "stewardship" will not make for a better Wall Street Journal.
I believe that this deal will also affect the Nikkei, another of the world's great newspapers, and which is also associated with Dow Jones.
It is very likely I will be doing the same.
Unless you are an employee of Murdoch, I do not think there is much cause for celebration. Rupert Murdoch is a businessman and a internationalist, who has shown some conservative leanings, but he is an old man. When he leaves the stage, there is every reason his media empire will rapidly go in a liberal direction. His son who may or may not take his place is a left wing kook.
It is better than what it was... it is a step closer towards individualism.... and another death knell for communist.
Ping. The usual suspects from the Drive-By Media fall out with the slobbering fits this afternoon.
‘Unthinkable’ Arrives: Response to Murdoch Takeover Rolls In
By E&P Staff
Published: July 31, 2007 2:15 PM ET
NEW YORK As word spread this afternoon that Rupert Murdoch had apparently finally won over enough of the Bancroft family to capture Dow Jones Inc. and the prized Wall Street Journal, responses from all corners of the media — and political — world started emerging.
The Journal, just before 3 p.m., explained the main reason for the Bancroft shift: The Dow Jones’s board agreed “to create a fund to cover payments to firms advising Bancroft family members, including Merrill Lynch and the law firms Hemenway & Barnes and Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. News Corp. would assume these liabilities if it bought Dow Jones. The fees could total at least $30 million, according to people familiar with the situation.”
We will carry a few outside responses here as they arrive.
***
“I think it will be a good deal for Dow Jones and The Wall Street Journal,” William Dean Singleton, CEO and vice chairman of MediaNews Group, tells E&P. “I think Rupert will probably make it even better. I was never one to sit around wringing my hands over this deal. I thought it was a good deal from day one. Rupert offered $60 a share for a stock that was trading at $36.”
Singleton said worries that Murdoch would hurt the Journal’s editorial independence “are way over done...I don’t have a lot of patience for journalists who sit around wringing their hands over change and wish things would stay the way they’ve been.”
Linda Foley, president of The Newspaper Guild, expressed disappointment with the deal, but said the future editorial impact on the Journal “is an unknown...If News Corp. didn’t get the message that that is important, then they are not listening. We’re going to continue to hold their feet to the fire.”
Lauren Rich Fine, former Merrill Lynch analyst, tells us: “I can appreciate the hand wringing that comes with a Murdoch owned Journal but his track record is fairly straightforward and in the public domain. Now that the Bancroft family exposed their own double standards, I, for one, would be happier with the devil I know.
“Further, as a 19-year veteran of the Street as sell-side analyst, I would further submit that the Journal is not beyond reproach as I recall more than one instance, where, as an informed observer of a company, their reporting on that company was full of innuendo and seemingly made efforts to influence rather than inform. Yet, in my mind, there is no doubt that the Wall Street Journal, editorial page notwithstanding, is the best paper in the country.
“Reporters at many papers across the country have deep concerns regarding the future of their business. There seems to be a sense of entitlement that since what they are doing is important, it should be guaranteed survival. Unfortunately, while I agree completely that what they are doing is important and essential to preserving democracy, the business model is being undermined by the rapid shift of formerly lucrative classified ads to the Internet. Yes, declining circulation is a concern but not as big a one as the shift of classifieds which hits more to the core of the current pressure on cash flow. Newspapers need to reinvent themselves both online and off and accept that future returns will be much lower. Difficult decisions need to be made such as acknowledging that a paper can’t be everything to everyone.”
*
David Sweet, at MSNBC.com: “The Mona Lisa should hang in a museum, not a subway platform. The Statue of Liberty should stand unvarnished in New York Harbor, not draped with corporate logos.
“And The Wall Street Journal should be owned by a company dedicated to maintaining its integrity, not one grasping to find content for a yet-to-be-launched cable channel.”
*
David Carr, at The New York Times: “In the end, the News Corporation’s capture of Dow Jones was quite simple: Rupert Murdoch wanted it more.
“He wanted it more than other potential bidders, like General Electric, Pearson and Ron Burkle, who never came close to challenging his audacious bid. He wanted it more than all the tut-tutting media organizations who offered little more than rhetoric. And he wanted it more in the end than the Bancrofts did — or at least he offered more than they were able to pass up....
“But his purchase reminds that the unthinkable is often doable, given the loot and the will. Murdoch is buying an American newspaper because he’s a sentimentalist, not because he has shown any particular skill at making money with them. His Midas touch in foreign tabloids, television, movies, and more recently, digital acquisitions, turns a little rusty when American publications are involved.”
*
Robert W. McChesney, media scholar and president of the media reform group, Free Press: “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 affect 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.”
Links referenced within this article
Find this article at:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003618978
Comments to the NY Times. The Moonbat’s eyeballs are rolling up in their heads...
http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/rupert-murdochs-wall-street-journal/
So much to respond to......
“There seems to be a sense of entitlement that since what they are doing is important, it should be guaranteed survival”
The plain ol fact of the matter is what they are doing ceased to be important a long time ago. Most journalists today are English major dropouts who lack the brains to be marine biologists and who hating to cook, aren’t good wife material.
“There seems to be a sense of entitlement that since what they are doing is important, it should be guaranteed survival”
It's breathtaking. I don't believe I've seen a bunch of people take themselves so seriously since John Lennon said the Beatles were more popular than Jesus.
Why, they're on a Pilgramage. They're Saving Souls. They're doing The Lord's Work.
If what they do is So Important, they should be willing to do it for free.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.