The Murdoch Empire to assimilate the Wall Street Journal

[St Disibod]

I think Martin Wolf offered the best comment on this affair (see here).

Rupert Murdoch is a great businessman. The Wall Street Journal is a great newspaper. Which of these reputations is likely to survive Mr Murdoch's prospective purchase of the Journal? Despite the high price he offers, "his" is the plausible answer.

Business magazines and business television stand on the shoulders of the few newspapers that do the reporting, and analysis, day in and day out. The Journal is the world's leader, if only by circulation. It is also two papers in one. Its news coverage is independent, questioning and authoritative. Its research is superb and its editing professional. Meanwhile, its editorial pages are the engine of US conservatism.

[...]

Yet I wonder how many even of his admirers would argue that Mr Murdoch, for all his successes, has created even one serious, authoritative and truly independent newspaper. That is not what Mr Murdoch is about. He is a populist, a lover of tabloids and a brilliant businessman. We already know three things about his influence on his publications.

The first is that the editorial line will almost certainly be pro-business and conservative...

The second thing we know is that the paper is likely to become shriller and more populist, across the board. Down-market is the direction Mr Murdoch knows...

The last and most important thing we know about Mr Murdoch is that business considerations matter. The controversies are numerous: over Australian coverage of Ansett airline, half-owned by News Corporation; over the dropping of the BBC from Star TV, whose coverage Mr Murdoch wanted to stretch into China; over the publication of the memoirs of Chris Patten, the UK's controversial last governor of Hong Kong; and over coverage in The Times at the time of the Hong Kong handover.

Many newspapers exist to entertain. Business papers exist to inform. Any doubt about the accuracy and independence of their coverage destroys their value as tools.

I'm no fan of the Wall Street Journal, but I agree with Wolf. The Financial Times is kept sharper and more informative by having at least one international competitor. If Murdoch is successful, which seems likely, the Financial Times will stand alone. Anyone think Murdoch will keep standards at their current height, or will he push them into a nose dive (albeit while profits probably soar)?

[St Disibod]

And the plot thickens a bit with this report from Matt Drudge (link):

Late Monday, NEW YORK TIMES Executive Editor Bill Keller upped the ante and set a Tuesday Page One placement for a controversial examination of Rupert Murdoch's ties to Communist China, newsroom sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

As conglomerates and multinationals like Murdoch's empire and Google move into China, will necessary criticism of China be silenced even in the West? That seems to be the charge floated by many, and now by heavyweights like the New York Times.

[Samarkand]

Have already commented on Murdoch's malign influence on a diff. thread this eve (Blair's legacy), but this just confirms everything I think about him. To be honest, I'd only expect it of Murdoch, but am truly disgusted at Google's behaviour over the last year. However, they are now a normal multinational so should we really expect any more?

Am tempted to ask questions re "well, you know, difficult birth of democracy etc etc in China", but then I go a bit Clash of Civilisations-ish when it comes to China.

Guess that means I don't know what the hell to make of China. Incidentally, it's a real issue at work at the moment, as one of our suppliers imports from there, and we're trying to trace accountability etc etc in the supply chain. Will know more soon!...

Last thought ... is there any serious power, whether governmental or powerful non-governmental, capable of denting Murdoch's influence in the world? Am a bit obsessed with him at the moment, as it surely cannot be right that ONE individual has so much power over the globe. As an FT reader and sometimes WSJ reader, am truly saddened by recent events.

[St Disibod]

I'd only expect it of Murdoch, but am truly disgusted at Google's behaviour over the last year. However, they are now a normal multinational so should we really expect any more?

Well the BBC are not for turning- hence why Murdoch had to drop it from his Star TV when he expanded it into China. So we can still secure a bit of balance. Naturally it is UK orientated, but they really are the best for international radio and television by a considerable measure.

Am tempted to ask questions re "well, you know, difficult birth of democracy etc etc in China", but then I go a bit Clash of Civilisations-ish when it comes to China.

China certainly seems odd from a distance, but as foreign nationals go the Chinese have long been my favourite to work with. That has reduced much of the anxiety for me.

As the Chinese state goes, they tend to play by the rules of anything they sign up to- at least moreso than many other 'reputable' countries. However if a custom exists, but it's not in writing and they haven't signed up to it, they won't hesitate to trample on it. So more international agreements that improve their own labour laws seems the best way to go.

If basic civic and labour rights are observed, and incrementally improved upon, the 'need' for democracy will be much reduced. A fairer society for China and a fairer global trading system for all would emerge.

Last thought ... is there any serious power, whether governmental or powerful non-governmental, capable of denting Murdoch's influence in the world?

Bond pretty much had a go at him in Tomorrow Never Dies- though that is probably best forgotten. It was the start of a three-film-long rot.

As an FT reader and sometimes WSJ reader, am truly saddened by recent events.

Hopefully thought the FT won't get complacent. If they can start to seep into the elite US market it might turn out a good thing. Though the odds of Americans reading foreign newspapers is probably somewhat akin to Murdoch sailing round the South Pacific in a stealth ship.

[St Disibod]

From the Wall Street Journal's own website (see here):

Dow Jones Board Approves Sale
Backing of News Corp. Offer
Puts Pressure on Family;
A Bancroft Exits Meeting
By SARAH ELLISON, MATTHEW KARNITSCHNIG and DENNIS K. BERMAN
July 18, 2007; Page A2

The board of Dow Jones & Co. voted to approve News Corp.'s $5 billion bid for the company last night, with two directors abstaining from the vote and one leaving the meeting early, according to people familiar with the matter.

My science fiction theme of the day fits in rather nicely. A certain line comes to mind- just imagine Rupert Murdoch with cybernetic implants.

Strength is irrelevant. We wish to improve ourselves. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service ours. Resistance is futile.

[Edo]

No Big Deal IMO - It looks like a perfect fit - the WSJ's and Murdoch's views are pretty much aligned - Dickensian laisse faire economics, anti-union, pro republican and pro Israel and to hell with democracy if it gets in the way of making a buck.

The WSJ's editorials during the reign of Shrub II have at times made FOX news actually look "Fair and Balanced"

BTW: Wolf's article above is typical of the way of the Old WASP elite looks at Murdoch - not quite one of us - if there is only one thing I admire "Digger" for it is his undeniable talent for getting up the noses of the establishment elites - both Left and Right.

[St Disibod]

No Big Deal IMO - It looks like a perfect fit - the WSJ's and Murdoch's views are pretty much aligned - Dickensian laisse faire economics, anti-union, pro republican and pro Israel and to hell with democracy if it gets in the way of making a buck.

Whereas it won't make much of a difference on my life- I like my international news on pink paper- I don't think it is a trifling matter. Moving Dow Jones into the Murdoch empire pushes a $3 billion company into $72 billion one. It could remain independent, free and balanced (with it's free-marketing ideology the unchanging pivot-point of course). But it seems more likely that that independence will be ground down according to the cash flows of the greater company. If they're pushing into China- slam!- no more anti-China articles until the deal is sorted; that sort of thing seems likely. The Bancroft family that has run Dow Jones for the last century and a bit tended to run things with public trusts. The same cannot be said of Murdoch, and what will become of News Corp when he dies? He is 76, and nobody knows the answer to that question. It seems a mighty big risk: the US could lose one of it's most powerful and distinct voices in the political and business world.

And with Murdoch still alive the degree to which he blurs his media empire with political decision making- I can't help thinking Tomorrow Never Dies, as dreary a Bond film as it was, was actually quite poignant- has to be deplored. News agencies are supposed to report news, not make it. If the news agency itself had a hand in the act, they have a motive to downplay its flaws. This story caught my eye yesterday:

The Financial Times[/i], see here,]
Blair took Murdoch calls just before war

Tony Blair took three telephone calls from Rupert Murdoch in 10 days before the Iraq war, it emerged yesterday after the unexpected release of details of the former prime minister's contacts with the owner of The Sun and The Times.

Lord Avebury, the Liberal peer, said the Cabinet Office had decided to release information he had first re-quested in 2004, the day after Mr Blair left Downing Street. His demand for details of meetings and conversations be--tween the two men un-earthed six telephone calls between September 2002 and April 2005.

Three - on March 11, 13 and 19 of 2003 - came at critical points in the build-up to war, as Mr Blair faced a threatened French veto, cabinet divisions and a pivotal speech to parliament.

The conflict began on March 20.

Another conversation took place on January 29, 2004, the day after Lord Hutton's report into the death of David Kelly, the weapons scientist, cleared Mr Blair of improper conduct but led to the resignation of Gavin Davies, chairman of the BBC.

The details come as the News Corp chairman's influence on political life is under renewed scrutiny after his $5bn (£2.4bn) bid for Dow Jones, publisher of the Wall Street Journal.

[St Disibod]

Well at least they got a good price:

The Wall Street Journal[/i], see here,]News Corp. Is Poised to Win Dow Jones
Murdoch Prevails As Bancrofts Agree To $5 Billion Buyout

A century of Bancroft-family ownership at Dow Jones & Co. is over.

Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. sealed a $5 billion agreement to purchase the publisher of The Wall Street Journal after three months of drama in the controlling family and public debate about journalistic values.

One of the oldest and best-known franchises in the newspaper industry, beset in recent years by business pressures, now enters a new era as part of a world-wide media conglomerate. Mr. Murdoch said yesterday he wants to add four pages of news coverage to the Journal.

I think the added news coverage is needed, I find it a very dreary read- too much business and not enough politics in my view. But I still worry about the editorial content and the course the Murdoch influence will set.

[David Cochrane]

Nothing has been confirmed yet, and from what I've read and who I've spoken to -things are still rather thin between the Murdochs and the Bancrofts.

[St Disibod]

Nothing has been confirmed yet, and from what I've read and who I've spoken to -things are still rather thin between the Murdochs and the Bancrofts.

Indeed, but I am lifting this off the newspaper's own website. Though they might have their own agenda- the share price should get a bump tomorrow (it's not even confirmed yet and I'm already suggesting the editorial line has gone a-wandering).

The vote is not due until later in the year, but public shareholders would be mad not to go for this offer: Murdoch has, more or less single-handedly, increased the value of their holding by 67 per cent. It really is down to the family, and he seems to have enticed enough of them. According to the report, he has 37.4 per cent of the company's voting power sewn up with the family, and the 29 per cent owned by the public is as good as his. At 66.4 per cent, that's quite a comfortable margin.