You'll Miss the Old Journal
So the Bancroft family will meet with Murdoch's folks to discuss the offer. This is probably a slippery slope that will end in the Journal becoming part of the Murdochian news manufacturing machine. You may think it doesn't matter if we lose the Journal's aggressive, fair, and detailed reporting on the business of business, but it does, very much.
And the problem with the resulting alteration of the Journal's focus and standards, as with all similar persiflage, is that one never quite knows when one is being sold a bill of goods. Of course the editorial page of the Wall St Journal long ago was hardly a bastion of accuracy or objectivity. But the truth is always a great deal more complex than anything presented on Fox. What will be quite devastating for American consciousness is when a Fox-Journal product seeps into cable television, economic analysis, talk shows, mainstream perceptions, and stock market movements. It is a characteristic of such seeping that the culture -- that web of beliefs and values -- never quite knows how its views and ethics change, and is never completely aware that the change has occurred. But Fox and other masters of the media all know, and those who somehow tumble to what's going on lack access to the instruments of correction.
In our democracy, because of our general commitment to free speech for all, and major media ownership for a few, it is nigh onto impossible to do anything to resist the impact of biased perspectives and ulterior motives on the part of media control groups. But there is one possible solution, which can be loosely referred to as Open Access, to be discussed in future posts.
And you think that is different than what the WSJ has already presented to the country???????????????
Yes, I agree that Murdoch buying his way into any contemporaneous media is problematic for the dissemination of truth, but c'mon Reed, you (Frontline) who have advocated and endured the "slings and arrows" of those that would hold 700MHz hostage to a highest bidder for emergency services, how can you think that the WSJ has been "fair, aggressive and detailed" in any of it's coverage?
The Murdoch offer is a perfect fit- legitimacy at a price- for the ability to become the "signal source" for the echo chamber.
Whichever way Rupert wants to steer our political fortunes.
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran
May 31, 2007 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The value of the franchise at the WST has a whole lot more to do with the news side than the editorial side. The editorial page may offer red meat to conservatives but the real value of the paper is tied to the unideological news side. Murdoch is not a stupid man. I doubt that, in the unlikely event he actually acquires the paper, he would risk imperiling the franchise by trying to merge the news with the editorial in the FOX model.
May 31, 2007 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
True if the WSJ can withstand the true nature of Murdoch- which I doubt- which is to sell newspapers in the fine tradition of "'ol yellow press" Hearst.
Fox started out as an "everyman" type of news analysis and quickly moved to an extreme position, which the WSJ name could only add creedence to.
If it was only to help his international financial perspective, with a global attack on Bloomberg, that would be one thing, but as a source for the "echo chamber" that has become the MSM, Murdoch could continue to distort reality with a time-honored name doing it's bidding.
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran
May 31, 2007 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Years ago NYT studied acquiring the Journal. It was determined to be too high a price so the Times ceded the business news sector and kept its focus on national and international. Times have changed and with circulations constricting and Wall Street on the attack against NYTCo, I would hope the Times revisits the issue. I am not suggesting that NYT buy DowJones (they'd have a hell of time finding an interested banker and would bristle at the terms), but I think the staff of WSJ may not love the idea that they will have a FoxNews broadcast corner setup in their newsroom.
Wouldn't it be a hoot if Rupert bought the Journal and the Times did a high profile poach of the best of the best from WSJ?
Fingers crossed.
June 1, 2007 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would be interested in your views of the overall broadband policy the US should adopt. It seems to me that open access is only one aspect of the whole issue.
To be provocative, wouldn't it be good public policy to create a content interconnection regime similar to the PSTN (which would de facto mean that google and yahoo! pay the underlying carriers to terminate traffic)in exchange for having a universal service mechanism (enforced through the supply and demand side subsidies?
In other words, if MSOs and telcos are required to wire up 95% of the country with 20Mbps connections in the next 10 years, wouldn't it be worthwhile to create a mechanism similar to access charges to help pay for thye investment?
C
June 1, 2007 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The Times ceded the business news sector." Actually, it has a pretty decent business section, at least for an ordinary investor, although with too much coverage of the obvious (the shenanigans of CEOs) and too flattering to its subjects, no doubt since it's covering potential advertisers.
Yes, Notrol, it will make a difference. It's a cliche that the WSJ has a nutty editorial page and a solid news section, but it's pretty much true nonetheless. Almost all TPM comments have agreed on that, too.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
June 1, 2007 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
After reading the WSJ for more than 25 years, I personally noticed a decline in the quality of its straight news coverage about 2 years ago (2004-20050. This decline accelerated when the went to the new smaller format this spring.
Perhaps this is a result of the Journal moving more of its best content to their web site. I don't have time to process all the information in the print version and also read the web site, so I can't say. But from where I sit they are already on the decline.
I suspect Murdoch's promises will last about as long as Daimler's did to Chrysler. And the end result will be the same.
sPh
June 1, 2007 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reply is not working for me, but this is a response to jhaber.
"Times ceded business to WSJ" - the study was whether they could dominate business coverage, which is to say go head to head for Wall Street readers with the Journal. They estimated $100M's of investment to do so. The current biz section is good for the current Times demographic, but not nearly good enough for the business/investor demo. Management was afraid it would bleed resources from national expansion, which has been a ten year strategy and is a a couple of years from completion--an ideal time to think about the next strategy, i.e. becoming the business paper of record.
I have to take exception to the slur that their business coverage is tempered by their ad department. This really is just not the case. NYT has been very critical of Federated Department stores in the past despite the fact that Federated is their largest display ad client. At NYT, the biz side and the reporter side are kept very much apart. Furthermore editors do not consult with executives on content. If something truly hot comes up it is escalated to the Publisher/CEO, who has always been more Publisher than CEO. Compare the number of Pulitzers to the revnue and stock price; it's a good read and a bad investment.
Since their ten year expansion is coming to a close, now is an ideal time to tilt at new windmills. If they spent on the biz section (via poaching as I suggested earlier) they could increase metro circulation and make the national edition even more attractive. They could also sell a business premium service via the web a la TimesSelect and the WSJ's current subscription-based web model. In turn, Arthur might actually redeem himself with stockholders, which could open up additional capital for investment.
Full disclosure: I haven't worked for the business side of the Times for seven years, and my current employer is a pretty vocal critic of NYTCo. I am sympatheic to both sides.
June 1, 2007 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
JCF, thanks. That was helpful for me, who's not a sophisticated reader of business news, and I'd like to see them spend more, too, although I realize the industry as a whole, as you say (with the example of the WSJ), is investing less in reporting than before.
When I say that I perceive a bias, I realize that they do a lot of coverage of wrong doing, of disappointing earnings reports, and so on. It's more the way they treat business news. Every time we have a new "star" CEO or a merger or a divestiture, we get an uncritical article from the company's point of view of the icky-poo bad things they'll now leave behind and the great new people in charge and gains ahead. Then two years later the saga repeats itself for the same company, give or take undoing what it did last time.
Or as I commented in another context, take the article the other day on Wolfowitz's successor. All puffery about his "agenda" without clarifying his agenda beyond a continuation of "reform" and rooting out "corruption." Does this scare the bank? Sure, but we can hear ourselves cheering. You'd have to read another news source entirely to get the idea that the agenda is kind of anti-Stiglitz, to enforce free market dogma on Third World nations as a loan condition.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
June 1, 2007 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fair point. Starting in the 80's, and the with reckless abandon in the 90's, this whole celebrity CEO thing started eclipsing the real goings on in the business world. I'll concede the Times is guilty of this; e.g. the original CEO as star Jack Welch, and the new generation with Jeff Bezoa and Carly Fiorino.
One exception, and a funny story to boot, was the Times disdain for Steve Hilbert, the disgraced founder of Conseco. I once arranged a meeting for a senior guy to meet with Hilbert. As we prepped for the meet and greet I related a story about Hilbert where he met his third wife when she jumped out of a cake at his son's bachelor party. My senior guy didn't believe me and said he had heard that urban (corporate?) legend before. He bet me cigars and scotch in the Havanna room if it were true. A couple of weeks go by and the Times covers a dispute over the GM building between Consecos new management and their partner in the deal, Donald Trump. Trump is quoted as saying that if Hilbert were still in charge there'd be no trouble at all. The Times then runs a background paragraph on Hilbert, starting with his rag to riches story and ending with...you guessed it...the story of his third wife.
That was a sweet Romeo e Julietto and 30 year old single malt. The view wasn't bad either (Havanna is where Top of the Sixes used to be).
So they don't like all the CEO's. Perhaps somewhere between polishing their apples and blasting their engagement stories there is moderation.
In all seriousness, this CEO as celebrity cult stuff is bad for business, investors and employees. Hurting companies overpay their new golden boy/gal with visions of solvency in their heads, only to find buyers remorse 18 months later. In the meantime investors get fleeced if they went long and employees get pink slips. If only coverage were less hype and damnation, we, the consumers of information, could step back and make better decions.
Good point.
/c
June 1, 2007 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great story. And yes, I bet you're right that a lot of it is the CEO star status. I'd be intrigued, too, to see more weighing of pluses and minuses in reports on big mergers and divestures, too, as with the last few years' sagas of Time Warner or Daimler Chrysler. When I read this week's report on Home Depot, I thought it'd be fun, too, to look back at reports on the change in direction back when to expand on "core business." Thanks for your tolerance here!
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
June 1, 2007 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The intentions of Murdoch and News Corp should be apparent to any one who has read any of their newspapers. There seems to be some grumbling in regards to promises made when they took over the Times of London. Is there any evidence that that newspaper is any better than the NY Post? Of course Fox News and the NY Post are excellent examples of the pathetic quality of News Corps' dedication to "fair and balanced" news reporting.
The recent flap over the people involved with their Page 6, and the manner in which that section is utilized, warrants more attention. Page 6 may be gossip, but it may also be the most honest part of the entire newspaper. At least they don't claim that the content is anything more than dish.
It is truly unfortunate that the laws regarding centralization and concentration of media ownership were stripped bare some years ago. That was undoubtedly the beginning of the end for quality news coverage. How is it even remotely possible that the people who currently control Dow Jones don't realize that they are selling out at a good price, but at a higher cost to what little is left of "fair and balanced" news.
June 3, 2007 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
When friends bring up things from the WSJ editorial page I observe that if the rest of the paper were written as the editorial page the paper would be looked on as a penny stock rag.
Alas, this news only confirms another smiling joke, I cannot think wildly enough for my “stories” not to be minimized and the joking turning to understatement by reality.
Sometimes it is better to have the devil you know than their evolving teenage offspring. :)
-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking
June 4, 2007 6:47 AM | Reply | Permalink