The board of directors of Dow Jones agreed to a tentative deal Tuesday night to sell the Wall Street Journal to Rupert Murdoch (in photo) and his News Corp. for $5 billion. The final decision must still be made by the Bancroft family, which has a controlling interest in Dow Jones.
Former Eagle editor Buzz Merritt argued in a commentary on our pages this week that the sale matters to you even if you don’t read the Journal. That’s because most of the national and world news come from five providers: the Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press.
If the owners of major newspapers are more interested in squeezing out profits than in quality news reporting, democracy suffers — because citizens don’t get the information they need to make good decisions and monitor the government.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Moore has had enough of House
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/23
50 Comments
Word is that Murdock is going to start up a Fox Business/Financial News Channel using the Journal as a source.
He wants to compete against Bloomberg and CNBC. And knowing Fox’s record, he will probably blow them out of the water.
Joe you’re right, Rupert Murdock has been blowing smoke up people’s butts for years with his Fox News Channel. Now he is just trying to make it look legitimate by buying up the Wall Street Journal.
So much for honesty and integrity.
Why do Leftist hate Fox News Channel? It’s the freakin same news crap all the other news channels do. You can’t tell them apart.
“…the Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press.”
One “conservative” group in the bunch and the Libs wet themselves.What happened to the Fairness Doctrine?
World’s news source are only those mentioned in the article?
I can go online and read BBC, English versions of French, German, Chinese, Japan and about any other country in the World for World news.There are even English versions of Arab News Services.
Since news information is now Global, to state that the only information that matters are U.S. News organizations is quite myopic in my opinion.
Murdoch likes the WSJ because it is the number one circulated and profitable paper in the U.S. It has a long tradition and is quite influential.
I doubt seriously that this purchase would be any different from the Time/Warner purchase of CNN or the Microsoft investment into MSNBC.
Much ado about nothing in my opinion.
NEWSFLASH:
WSJ readers are heavily right-leaning already, so what’s the point of this bed-wetting article?
“If the owners of major newspapers are more interested in squeezing out profits than in quality news reporting, democracy suffers — because citizens don’t get the information they need to make good decisions and monitor the government.”
I’ll have to remember this caveat every morning as I’m peeling off that friggin’ advertising sticker off the front page of my WE paper.
Meaning that since it’s right-wingers who read the WSJ as you say, the newspaper just caters to a bunch of idiots.
Ok!
Fox News claims to be fair and balanced but yet they always seem to come out on the Republicans’ side. I wonder why?
My only question is whether Rupert Murdoch will try to get schmoozy with the Democrats when they take over the White House in 2008? Big money always goes with the power – no matter what party is in power.
The Eagle endorsed Tiahrt time and time again. they endorsed Bush. I wonder if FOX or the WSJ have even endorsed a Democrat?
I bow in honor of the quality smack that Joe Williams lays down.
Since you’re a dem Joe, I’m going to guess you might need a job. Hit the pavement bud, I’m sure there’s a bus stop near your apartment. Be sure you talk to a tax advisor so you don’t work yourself over and above the EIC threshold.
Probably not rebel. There are political parties and there are billionaires.
Billionaires are an unique entity. They can have multi-national influence and cross party lines at will. A billionaire is so influential, they are almost like their own country.
There are a few that are truly political like Soros. Most Billionaires however may hold certain values but they hold power and of course $$ as their primary motivators.
Murdock will dumb down the WSJ, just like his Fox news channel.
Dear: An edumacated, gainfully employed right-winger!
I’m no Democrat. My remarks were a sarcastic statement directed [Someone who had a high enough IQ that they didn't have to resort to a communication/journalism degree] as he is making reference to that the WSJ shouldn’t have any credibility as a News source because it caters to so called “right-wingers”.
See! Members of the left, honestly believe that right-wingers are a bunch of idiots, and since they think they are, it gives them the right to be and act superior towards them.
So anything that is tagged “right-wing”, especially news sources, then it must be nothing but hate-filled propaganda that merits nothing more than tabloid status.
That is what they think. I happen to find it disconcerting. Their arrogance is actually annoying.
So man! You got me tagged for the wrong guy.
Outside of the ultraright editorials the WSJ has a good reputation for journalism. Now Murdoch will turn the WSJ into some yellow journalistic pulp trash like the New York Post.
A misinformed society tends to vote Republican and nothing more could make Murdoch happier.
I think Doug its more about what Joe pointed out in the first post. That is, the integration of the WSJ into a Cable TV Financial News channel.
I doubt if Murdoch has an reason to redefine WSJ in his “own image” whatever that may be. If something works, don’t fix it.
WSJ gets purchased by Murdoch and the socialists go crazy. Give me a break.
If newsprint wasn’t so interested in pushing an agenda with its passive/aggresive attacks on the current administration maybe we could get a fair and balanced news source.
I pretty much discount anything from AP anymore due to the propaganda (like the doctored photo’s from lebanon) they spew.
Their use of stringers in Iraq that are members of the insurgency, although reported, is of course discounted by the Left. Not to mention the embelishment and editorial work done on the AP’s already biased reporting by the other print and MSM sources.
In the end it all adds up to what sells print and air time. Sooooo Mr. Brownlee and Buzz….why don’t you eat what you cook. Drop your agenda and do whats right (pun intended). If you want an idealized print media do it without any adverts or any bias to make money. I find it so funny when the left practices its “do as I say, not as I do” agenda.
Murdoch has stated to the effect that the financial articles are too long and involved, and in depth. So like fox, we can count on less news and more editorializing.
A misinformed society tends to vote Republican and nothing more could make Murdoch happier.
Posted by: Doug
That is because this is the group that has been dumbed down to believe every little catch phrase Bush has come up with so far.
Fortunately, the majority of Americans have awakened to the fact the country has been sold down the river for a few wealthy people’s more wealth.
Murdoch is no different than anyone else in his financial position. Money comes before all else, but he likes to hide behind a wall of decency and legitimacy.
“A misinformed society tends to vote Republican and nothing more could make Murdoch happier.”
Oh jesus…..With heros like “Rosie O’Donnel”, “Micheal Moore” and the guys from Loose Change you got a lot of room to be throwing stones about misinformation. The left is the main propaganda machine in the MSM and print today!
I am actually a moderate that has been pushed to the right by the complete arrogance of the left. The disinformation that is all around is nuts…the passive/aggressive atacks and vitirol that is comes from the left is pushing this country to a culture war.
If your not proud of this country then leave. Do not try to change this country to something that it was never meant to be. The left has done far more damage to this country and its image than the current administration could ever have done.
“democracy suffers”?
please.
get over yourselves media.
all I have to say..
Fox news has had the highest ratings for the last 2 years.and not to mention that they are more balanced then all the other channels put together.every news monitoring agency says the other channels lean way left and only left.
so go dumb people..
I just hope the WSJ maintains the quality of its financial coverage. I have long since relegated its opinion pages to the far right.
BG – was the koolaid good this morning?
don’t know, I’m Republican…….
I actual go out and read the facts unlike Airhead America listeners..
“Every news monitoring agency”
He means “the Fox News News Monitoring Agency.”
BG–
Your post might have some persuasive power if you linked to sources that back up your position.
Links and sources.
What a concept!
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp
Murdoch is in business to make money.
The value of the WSJ lies in it’s credibility.
Anything Murdoch did to damage the credibility of the WSJ would be against his financial interest. Don’t look for any big changes.
What happened in congress last night proves that we have lost our government to the Jews and the question is: What are we going to do about it { short of violence}.
Zionist controlled Israel gets what they want, but America doesn’t….
This is not a call for acts of violence against American Jews or Synogogues, as most American Jews as other Americans deplore what’s happening in Iraq and Israel.
Synagogues
Of course it matters who owns a news organization. That is always good information to consider when accepting their product.
However, thanks to the free market you are able to ignore what you consider ‘bad journalism’ and get news from a source you consider credible. This is much ado about nothing. There is no monopoly being formed that would then control information. That would be cause for concern.
“If the owners of major newspapers are more interested in squeezing out profits than in quality news reporting, democracy suffers . . . ”
As if owners of the newspapers ever gave a rat’s a$$ about democracy.
Owning a paper is a profit business. It is, and always has been been, about profits, not “quality journalism” or “democracy” (and yes, that includes you, Eagle). That was true for Hurst and the yellow journalism that drove, in large part, the US into the Spanish-American War, and it’s no less true today. Don’t kid yourselves – it’s about selling advertising and generating profits. It’s ALWAYS been about that. IT WILL ALWAYS BE ABOUT THAT.
The modern media environment doesn’t change that, in fact, it makes it more so. Newspapers must compete with so many other news sources, they must pay ever more attention to that bottom line as their monopoly on information has been broken (which is also why this is hardly news to worry about).
In business, dollars drive nearly every decision, and newspapers are a business, first and foremost. It has always been so. Thinking otherwise is deluded and naive.
The interesting thing is, the left decries what they see as agenda driven media even while they celebrate and encourage what others see as agenda-driven media (see, for example, the Eagle’s endless agenda-driven distortions of the Tiahrt amendment). The only difference is who’s agenda is being driven.
The more things change, the more they stay the same . . . .
Why do lefties think righties are idiots? Hmmmm… might have something to do with that Iraq war thing. Back in 2003, the righties insisted they knew more about the mideast than anyone else, including the people who lived there. Since 2003, the righties have been proven wrong on everything they said. And the lefties (whom they derided for opposing the invasion) have been proven right.
So yes, I would say the good people of the small isolated states that voted for Bush and the Iraq war, are not as bright as they think they are.
“If the owners of major newspapers are more interested in squeezing out profits than in quality news reporting, democracy suffers — because citizens don’t get the information they need to make good decisions and monitor the government.”
GMC,
I would like to recommend that you read: _Knightfall: Knight Ridder and How the Erosion of Newspaper Journalism is Putting Democracy at Risk_ by Davis Merritt. Before I read the book, I thought that the subtitle sounded like a Journalist who was having delusions of grandeur. After reading the book his points seemed valid to me. He is not saying that newspaper should not make a profit. Historically, newspapers have made around 15% profit which has provided many an owner a reasonable income. There has always been competing interests of profit and public service. In recent years the emphasis has been more on profit rather than quality and as a result the information we get has suffered. Other news outlets such as TV news rely upon newspaper journalism as primary sources of information. So the reduction in newspaper journalism quality has a ripple effect across news sources.
Merritt’s book seems to be a fair and even handed treatment in my view. I have a copy that I will loan out.
“There has always been competing interests of profit and public service.”
No, their hasn’t. Profit has always driven any business, including journalism. It’s just that good journalism is profitable.
“No, their [sic] hasn’t. Profit has always driven any business, including journalism. It’s just that good journalism is profitable.”
Always encouraging to meet up with a conservative that is willing to consider viewpoints other their own. I guess the 1st amendment was written into the constitution to ensure newspaper business profits rather than serving the dual purpose of educating the public about their government.
Aren’t you going to regale us with your definition of “good journalism” – that ought to be interesting…
“There has always been competing interests of profit and public service.”
No, their hasn’t. Profit has always driven any business, including journalism. It’s just that good journalism is profitable.Posted by: GMC70 | July 19, 2007 at 06:00 PM
Just to repeat:It’s just that good journalism is profitable.Posted by: GMC70 | July 19, 2007 at 06:00 PM
Yeah, that last sentence is exactly right I think.
Slight aside. One of the very best television shows ever, imho, is Deadwood (HBO).
I would encourage everyone who reads this blog to watch every episode of this program. It fully supports GMC70’s conclusion.
It’s also slightly darker. For instance, it’s insidious in its ideas about democracy. Chase clearly shows that in his fictional Deadwood the “powers that be” supported democratic government first and foremost because it was the very best form of government to ensure an utterly unfettered form of capitalism. Didn’t hurt, either, that democratic government was the best way, maybe the only way in Chase’s fictional account of Deadwood, to ensure the livelihood of certain prosperous citizens in the face of monopoly power (that enjoyed by Chase’s fictional rendition of George Hearst, who in real life was the father of William Randolph Hearst, a very famous American newspaper magnate. Ironically enough, heh.).
Great, great, great television program (maybe the best ever, maybe — my opinion). Highly recommended.
Oh, and highly, extremely profane. Believe me.
But really great, too.
Deadwood is a good show. I have rented the first season from Blockbuster. I would bet that it is as close to the real west as about any treatment I have seen. Clint Eastwood’s “Unforgiven” is also realistic, I think. The latter even includes someone getting shot while taking a dump in an outhouse.
Newspaper businesses are kind of bipolar in a way. They used to try to seperate the business – ads, etc. from the news departments. I think there are people in the news business who consider themselves as doing a public service. I am not cynical enough to say news is only about business. If it was that it was only about business, it is hard to see how they could ever hope to have any public trust – which is important to have.
So, I am going to respectfully disagree with the prevailing opinions here.
“It’s just that good journalism is profitable”
Which, of course, is why Murdoch wants the WSJ, and would be insane to make changes which would destroy that reputation.
And yes, Pedant, there is a connection between economic freedom and political freedom. If you don’t think so, just ask Russia and the old Soviet block; it was the attempt to remove loosen central economic controls while keeping political control which spelled (in part) the end of the Soviet empire. And now the Chinese are trying to walk that tightrope.
Well, obviously I can’t speak for GMC.
So, for me: the truth is always an absolute defense. So when GMC writes that “good journalism is good business,” to me it means that journalism is appreciated by the largest buying public (ie, my proxy here for “most profitable”) when it sheds a clear, clinical light on events previously conducted in what is dark or obscured to those paying.
I would argue that the vast majority of Americans look to news for just that. Journalism limits, perhaps even minimizes, its profits when it prints editorials over news.
I guess I’m saying that a direct correlation exists between accurate news reporting and profits, and that editorials are inversely related to profit maximization.
Note that we may not disagree here, Steven. ;>)
And yes, Pedant, there is a connection between economic freedom and political freedom.Posted by: GMC70 | July 19, 2007 at 07:25 PM
I agree. The reason Deadwood is remarkable to me is that the link, the relation, is made so obvious.
If you haven’t seen this television program, you should. I think you would find the value considerable, despite what perhaps may be the high cost of its considerable profanity (in all possible definitions of that word, too).
Great tv.
One one of its many levels, Deadwood is a clinically accurate pathology of prairie democracy in its US infancy (largely accurate, although of course accuracy serves fiction first).
This program accomplishes, among other popular entertainments, a kind of whirlygig anatomy of democratic government and why it spread west in 19th century America, despite the distance between democracy’s leading western edge and Washington, DC.
Or perhaps because of it. You watch, and you tell me.
“It’s just that good journalism is profitable”
‘Which, of course, is why Murdoch wants the WSJ, and would be insane to make changes which.’
You watch. He will. America suffers as a result.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12026415
GMC, you are smart, but really stupid. I feel sorry for you. Good night.
“If your not proud of this country then leave. Do not try to change this country to something that it was never meant to be. The left has done far more damage to this country and its image than the current administration could ever have done.”
William, you do know the founding father were liberals? America was founded on liberal principals. They believed that newspapers should be mailed free, and a free press was essential to democracy.
Now six corporation control what we read and see and we can’t even trust what we read to be the truth any longer. NBC owned by GE, the government largest defense contractor.
But, thank God for the internet.
From Murdocks’ other media holdings, it appears that poor journalism is more profitable, at least profitable enough he can by the WSJ. I agree that he’ll use it to further his own personal and business interest.
I cannot wait until he buys The Weather Channel so we can get a good conservative slant on the weather. They will divide the map into blue and red states and give the weather for both.
The liberal is slanted to the left in general. But that’s just it…SLANTED. FOX is a 24/7 infomercial for the right. Bush could be caught molesting a troop of cubscouts in the oval office, and they would cover it up instead of report it.
The media is bad, FOX is worse.
‘The liberal is slanted to the left in general’. I am guessing you meant the media is slanted left. Well the NYT is left of the hard left, they are bonkers left. From the last time I read it, they always had editorials blaming Bush twice/thrice a week for something or the other. Then there was their ‘preachtorials’ giving sermons about what the faithful left should believe and encouraging liberal ideological values. Also their ‘news’ section is preoccupied with what the Evangelicals are doing and explaining to the left what they are upto. It was like a scientist writing down his observations from an experiment and trying to make sence out of them. However, the strategies, goals and workings of the left they will not reveal. It was like a scientist who cannot observe himself when he himself is the experiment, so their liberal reporters cannot write analytical articles about liberals. It was funny also to see what consituted a practising Christians for their reporters: Any donkey that supports abortion, gay marriage and is ideologically against the vatican and evangelicals is a practising Christian.So if Foxnews is worse, the NYT is the worst by far.