Posted on 07/31/2007 9:37:37 AM PDT by tobyhill
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.
Unfortunately, the reality for America's premier business newspaper is quite different. According to reports, the Bancroft family has decided to cash out, accepting a $60-a-share offer for Dow Jones stock from News Corp.'s Rupert Murdoch. Both the Dow Jones board and the News Corp. board are scheduled to meet to approve the pact. Dow Jones will now be merely a division of a massive company -- and The Wall Street Journal a relative pipsqueak in revenue compared to, say, "The Simpsons."
It didn't have to be this way. Dow Jones stock was priced at $70 in early 2000 without buyout offers. Since then, The Wall Street Journal Online has added about 600,000 paid subscribers (many big-city dailies don't even have that many customers after generations in business). Though Dow Jones has its troubles like all media companies, its properties aren't bleeding subscribers or advertisers. The Bancrofts can enjoy their big payday, but what they're giving up — stewardship of an American institution — no amount of money can replace.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
A lot of newspapers are owned by chains nowadays, I think. I think the LA Times is owned by the Chicago Tribune company. There are probably very few stand-alone newspapers or magazines or TV stations or radio stations or anything in communications anymore.
So, why is it necessarily bad if Wall St. Journal is not a stand alone paper anymore? Because of Rupert Murdoch and Fox News and all that? Would they have the same reaction if Ted Turner founder of CNN had bought it and figured to make changes?
Pretty revealing about the MSM mindset. They regard a newspaper as an imperishable, priceless heirloom that ought to have special protection.
I’m sure these journalist own shares of the WS Journal and are secretly praising the deal but in public must scorn it.
From Study of Media Bias
"A Measure of Media Bias," a December 2004 study conducted by Tim Groseclose of the University of California, Los Angeles and Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri, stated that:
“ One surprise is the Wall Street Journal, which we find as the most liberal of all 20 news outlets [studied]. We should first remind readers that this estimate (as well as all other newspaper estimates) refers only to the news of the Wall Street Journal; we omitted all data that came from its editorial page. If we included data from the editorial page, surely it would appear more conservative. Second, some anecdotal evidence agrees with our result. For instance, Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid (2001) note that "The Journal has had a long-standing separation between its conservative editorial pages and its liberal news pages." Paul Sperry, in an article titled the "Myth of the Conservative Wall Street Journal," notes that the news division of the Journal sometimes calls the editorial division "Nazis." "Fact is," Sperry writes, "the Journal's news and editorial departments are as politically polarized as North and South Korea."
Yeah it's a real jewel all right......
Waaaah. Newspaper reporters and commentators think newspapers have more integrity than, say, the hot dog vendor down the street. That they would never make a decision based on the financial health of the company.
Years of ignoring economic reality is coming home to roost; now the “Mrs Robinson” Bancroft family decides to not go down the inevitable snowy road of 21st-century newspaper ownership and this turd wants to tag Murdoch for taking it off their hands.
Anybody from MSNBC or NBC has a well known Jones for Murdoch and this high minded sounding piece is nothing but self serving trash.
Well they are right in as much as if News Corp. turns it into tabloid trash ala the NY Post and others, I won’t be reading it anymore.
“Contributor” David Sweet offers his opinion of the Wall Street Journal sale, rife with predictions of changes he apparently views as dire consequences. He compares the newspaper to a painting, a statue and a baseball team. Frankly, I fail to see the connection. Apparently he does not understand that a newspaper about business, finance and good old American Capitalism, is itself a business, not a picture hanging on the wall. But, of course I’m a mere contributor and I could be wrong.
I wonder if master Sweet would have written the same drivel if the bleeding heart lib Ron Burkle Burkle (a confirmed Clinton a$$ kisser) would have scrounged up the coin to buy the WSJ?
I bet not.
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.