:: The O'Murdoch factor, por Gary Weiss en Salon.com:
:: Betting Against Murdoch, por Dan Dorfman en The NY Sun:
The Murdoch-Dow Jones face-off is only the most dramatic illustration of what has been obvious for a long time, which is that public ownership and newspapers do not mix. Investor interests can be balanced against the interests of journalism, and compromises in either direction can be rationalized, but at bottom it is an irreconcilable conflict in which journalism will always lose.
Public ownership has been a disaster for newspapers not just because it invites hostile takeovers. Quite simply, much of what newspapers do has no clear investment rationale.
Whether Rupert Murdoch will be successful in his bold pursuit of Dow Jones & Co. is anybody's guess. Despite his enormous success, his dogged determination to succeed in every personal and business outing and, his deep pockets, some Wall Street pros are already betting he's a loser.:: At least 60 WSJ staffers have signed anti-Murdoch letters en NY Observer:
The letter-writing campaign to Bancroft family members thought to be getting the ard sell from Mr. Murdoch keeps growing. So far, according to multiple Journal staffers, at least 60 reporters and editors have taken part.:: Is Rupert Murdoch Losing Faith In His Dow Jones Bid? en Dealbreaker:
But Murdoch himself may not be so confident these days, according someone familiar with Murdoch's current thinking. The advisor said that Murdoch has expressed doubts about his ability to acquire the company in the face of continued opposition from the Bancrofts.:: Murdoch hints at no boost to Dow Jones bid en MediaBiz de CNNMoney:
He did hint that the company would not raise its offer for Dow Jones. Murdoch, who refused to address questions about the bid from analysts or reporters, said that it was unfortunate that news of the offer leaked last week since he had preferred to negotiate with Dow Jones and the Bancroft family, which owns a controlling stake in the company, in private. But he called News Corp.’s $60 per share offer “a more than full and fair price.”:: Rupert's Journal? por James Brady en Forbes.com:
Philosophically, I'm uneasy about the concentration of media power. But I was one of Murdoch's men, admire him immensely, am grateful for the opportunities he gave me, and am astonished by the sheer effrontery of his extraordinary creations and acquisitions. He bought The Times of London once, and Fleet Street survived. I want the guy to win--but I'm not saying the winning doesn't make me edgy.:: For Clues to a Murdoch-Owned Journal, Look to London, en Washington Post:
:: Digging Murdoch, por William Powers en National Journal:
Which Rupert Murdoch wants to buy the Wall Street Journal? The question is urgent among reporters and editors at the Journal and probably among some
American news consumers as well. They fear that Murdoch's News Corp. will acquire the Journal with its unsolicited $5 billion bid and then destroy it. They fear he will extend the Journal's conservative editorial-page ideology into the paper's news stories, turning the Journal into a mouthpiece for Murdoch's politics and a cudgel with which to beat his enemies. [...]
And indeed, the Times switched to a tabloid size in 2004. But that's largely where the similarities end. Over the past 26 years, Murdoch has treated the Times as the journalistic crown jewel of his empire, according to current and former employees.
Times staffers in London say that if Murdoch gets the Journal, he may handle it as he does the Times: as a valuable nexus for the latest intelligence on the global marketplace.
It's been funny watching media people try to wrap their minds around the idea that Rupert Murdoch may be the next owner of Dow Jones and its most famous asset, The Wall Street Journal. Not funny ha-ha, but funny as in tragicomic, as in every laugh is also a sob.:: Consolidation threatens America's newsrooms en Seattle Times:
:: Why the Bancrofts should turn down Murdoch, por Ian Johnson en Nieman Watchdog:
“Murdoch’s News Corporation newspapers and cable news are notable for flamboyant headlines, and for talking heads such as Bill O’Reilly, who prefer volume to substance.
The agencies and elected officials that are supposed to protect our democracy have instead given away one of the democracy's crucial supports: the press. The once-robust and diverse press has been transformed into mere properties lumped in with other disparate industries in a bookkeeper's ledger. This has all happened with the help of the FCC, which the media biggies are again pushing to relax rules that ban one company from owning a newspaper and radio and television stations in the same market.
But what worries me as a long-time China correspondent is that Murdoch doesn't separate his business interests from his newsgathering operations. Thus it's quite conceivable, to me at least, that he'd ask senior editors to tone down the China coverage. We've won two Pulitzer prizes there in the past six years for our hard-hitting coverage. He could well view such work as a nuisance.