Murdoch Makes Bid For WSJ

This is scary:

The News Corporation, owner of Fox News and The New York Post, has made an unsolicited $5 billion bid for Dow Jones, publisher of The Wall Street Journal. . . . The acquisition of Dow Jones would broaden the reach of News Corp, owned by Rupert Murdoch, into business reporting and American media in general.

In running The Times (UK), Murdoch's record has received mixed reviews. But Murdoch in England is not Murdoch in the US, where his media properties are nothing but GOP propaganda vehicles. If Murdoch acquires the Wall Street Journal, will we lose the Wall Street Journal news operation, one of the best in the business (as opposed to the editorial pages which Murdoch could not be happier with one imagines) to Fox like bias?

< On The Netroots | BREAKING! Bin Laden Still Alive! >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    If he gets it, he'll destroy it. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue May 01, 2007 at 12:09:55 PM EST

    I'm such a capitalist (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 01, 2007 at 01:37:28 PM EST
    I swear I see things like this and think to myself, "Wow, what an opportunity for a new business journal! A huge gaping market niche for people who really want to make money and not lose it every day investing in lies and propaganda!"

    At the Post, (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by scribe on Tue May 01, 2007 at 12:15:53 PM EST
    writing complete sentences is a dishcarge offense.

    We'd surely get the same at WSJ.  

    A few thoughts on Murdoch and Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Key on Tue May 01, 2007 at 12:42:41 PM EST
    I once worked on a Masters Thesis on Murdoch and one of his British newspapers, the Sun.  The Sun publishes two editions, one English, one Scottish.  It is (or at least was at the time of my research) the most widely read paper in Britain.  (It also happens to be the paper with the topless "Page 3 Girl".)

    Back in the days when the Conservatives were in power in the UK, the English edition of the paper was extremely pro Conservative party and anti-Labour party.  But the Scottish edition was anit-Labour AND anti-Conservative.  That paper supported the SNP (the Scottish Nationalists).

    In Scotland, the Labor party won the vast majority of seats in British Parliament, and nearly always by a landslide.  So the most hurtful (to Labour) thing the Murdoch owned paper could do in Scotland was to support the SNP.

    My thesis was that the motivation behind this was not so much political as it was profit.  I theorized that given the right change in the political atmosphere, both the English and Scottish editions of the paper would throw their support behind Labour.  And that's exactly what happened when the tide clearly began to turn in favor of electing Blair.

    Whether or not the Sun's shift from being very vocal in its anit-Labour stance to being vocally pro-Labour had anything to do with Blair winning his first election, is something that would be very interesting to study.

    Here's an interesting link regarding Clinton and Murdoch: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1423351/posts

    And then there is this one on that fund raiser Murdoch held for Clinton last year: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12762092/

    A final thought.  The WSJ already has a very conservative editorial board.  Under Murdoch, I doubt it could get more conservative.  But if Murdoch feels the winds of change blowing, his vast media machine could (at least the print machine, given that FNC appears to still be a money machine) start shifting its gears a bit in the months to come.

    What are your thoughts?

    WSJ straight reporting is/was good (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue May 01, 2007 at 12:47:02 PM EST
    The editorialist clearly don't read the reporters's news articles. If Murdoch takes over would the reporting be still top notch or would it become Faux News in print?


    Things Change (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by squeaky on Tue May 01, 2007 at 12:59:32 PM EST
    The great WSJ reporters may have to find other work if Murdoch takes the helm. McClatchy, or the CSM may rise to fill its shoes.

    Although given the state of the newspaper biz looks like all will become rags soon. A friend of mine at CSM has just gotten a new editor who demands that her stories pander more to mass hysteria (islamophobia, immigration fears) than remedy those fears.

    Fear, the lowest common denominator, sells.

    I miss facts (4.80 / 5) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 01, 2007 at 01:40:31 PM EST
    I miss a lot of things these days but I really do miss facts.

    Deal's Off (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by squeaky on Tue May 01, 2007 at 04:54:55 PM EST
    From HuffPo:

    NEW YORK -- Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal, said Tuesday it received an unsolicited bid from Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. to buy the company for $5 billion, but the family that controls the company said it would oppose the deal.

    Discrediting the MSM: (4.00 / 1) (#8)
    by fairleft on Tue May 01, 2007 at 03:05:58 PM EST
    Murdoch always advances that project. Though I don't really see him making significant changes to the WSJ news side. Just a little tweaking here and there when a deal demands it. The way things have gone with his ownership of the Times backs me up.

    Is he just buying the paper or the entire Dow Jones Corp? Now that would be scary.