Murdoch, Journal To Set Up Editorial Board

Report: New Panel Will Serve As Editorial Buffer And Have Say In Hiring And Firing Of Top Editors

(CBS/AP) 
The companies' statement put the value of the deal at $5.6 billion, but it wasn't clear if that figure also included the assumption of debt, and the companies didn't provide a breakdown of how they arrived at that figure. Dow Jones' most recent financial filing shows it has 83.8 million shares outstanding, valuing the company at $5 billion at Murdoch's price of $60 per share.

Murdoch has said he would invest in the Journal's Washington bureau and digital operations and expand its domestic readership, taking on the two other national U.S. newspapers, The New York Times and Gannett Co.'s USA Today. He has also said he would expand the Journal's presence overseas, where it would go up against other business publications, including Pearson PLC's Financial Times.

Murdoch also plans to launch a business-themed cable news channel in the United States later this year to rival General Electric Co.'s highly profitable CNBC network. Murdoch hopes Dow Jones' news resources and brand name help jump-start that channel, but he would have to negotiate out of a deal CNBC has to use Dow Jones news through 2012.

The deal for Dow Jones would be the third time in just over a year in which a major newspaper publisher was pushed into a sale. Last year, Knight Ridder Inc. was forced to sell itself following shareholder pressure, and this year Tribune Co. agreed to a going-private transaction orchestrated by real estate magnate Sam Zell.

News Corp. had said it would agree to move ahead only if the deal had sufficient support from the Bancroft family. Combined with the 29 percent of the vote held by public shareholders, who are very likely to support Murdoch, the deal is now assured of passing.

In a lengthy letter to fellow family members last week, Bancroft descendant Crawford Hill argued for the sale, saying the family hasn't taken an active enough role in overseeing Dow Jones and is now "paying the price for our passivity over the past 25 years."

Some of the Bancrofts — who collectively hold 64 percent of Dow Jones' vote — had actively sought alternatives to Murdoch's offer.

At various times in the past three months, several family members, a union representing Journal reporters, and former board member Jim Ottaway Jr. expressed concerns about preserving the Journal's quality and independence under Murdoch, saying there was potential for corporate meddling in the Journal's news coverage.

German publishing executive Dieter von Holtzbrinck resigned as a director of Dow Jones two weeks ago after the board tentatively signed off on the deal, saying he was worried about how the Journal would fare under Murdoch.

Murdoch says concerns about potential corporate interference in the Journal's news pages are unwarranted. But skepticism remains in some quarters as The Journal prepares to step off into a period that is likely to bring many changes.

"I think it's almost naive for anybody to believe that he's going to buy The Journal and keep his hands off the editorial product," said Arlene Morgan, a newspaper industry veteran and an associate dean at the Columbia School of Journalism.

Outside of the Dow Jones building in lower Manhattan on Tuesday, Thomas Walker, who works on the global copy desk at the Journal, said he is quitting rather than work for a Murdoch-owned paper.

"I don't want to work for the man," he said.

[CBSTV]

Several members [of the Bancroft family feared] the quality and independence of the paper would suffer under [Murdoch's] watch.

Of course, this is precisely what will happen despite the proposed Editorial Board. Murdoch is not paying $5 billion for Dow Jones to operate it status quo. The Wall Street journal will become like any other News Corporation entity.

Note to the Bancroft family: Did you really need Murdoch's tainted cash? Your fortunes are already so great that you could not spend them down in your lifetimes had you tried. What is your legacy now -- that you built up a quality journalistic enterprise over many decades only to sell it to a scourge?

[jm_rvel]

Now we can finaly have a "fair and balanced" daily report on our economy.

[davidmfrey]

Nothing good can come of it...

[rushlimpdrug]

Mr. Murdoch,
I would like to nominate mudrose, mike71067, processor5, singinrick, and peewee herman (for spell checking) to the Editorial Board.
Thank you

p.s. You can find their resumes are inside a cracker jack box.

[jmurrieta1]

Look on the bright side. The WSJ has lost considerable credibility among normal people due to this tabloid takeover. It won't matter if Mordork puts Oliver Wendell Holmes on his "advisory board", now the WFJ is tarred with the *** News / fish wrap brush. Their editorials will be easier to ignore, and their supposedly factual articles will be taken less at face value.

The mask has dropped off.

[king77shaw]

www.zeitgeistmovie.com ...

watched it last night - a must see

[talkingham]

This just makes it official. America's media has been bought-out since the first Iraq "war" and this just makes it all official. Americans need an Aussie billionaire to tell them what to think, read and see. The neoconservatives have made a concerted effort to buy, destroy and control media since prior to the Gingrich "revolution" and we have to fake wars to show for their efforts. Guess we'll be hearing a lot more about Iran in the coming months and very little about Osama Bin Laden. Meanwhile the National Guard is a shambles (though a lot more experienced now for those who remain behind to fight the next fake war).

Anyone who rises too high in the media on the left gets fired, deleted or their plane crashes mysteriously a-la-jfk jr and the two Dem senators who would have won swing states in the 2004 Presidential election. Funny things happen to liberals in the media and in key states coveted by the repubs.

[sharncedar]

How ironic that the editors of WSJ would complain about the same tactics they've been pushing on the rest of America all these years - leveraged buyout and oppression by an ignoramous whose only skill is in raising capital, not running businesses. WSJ celebrated goons like Jack Welch who used similar tactics to destroy the small competitors and the innovation in America, the freedom of competition and thought that leads to innovation destroyed by mountains of money raised by the biggest and dumbest financial goons.

Actually, it is far worse than ironic. If one more media type or WSJ employee complains about this crummy takeover then they should be punished, given 15 years of hell to pay. It means they are worse than misguided, it means they were evil to the core all along. It means everything that WSJ has advocated and stood for was a lie, a corrupt and dirty lie. And since their advice was taken by politicians for 15 years, including the Clintons, that is an enormous betrayal, an enormous crime.

There si no better test of a medicine than to make the doctor take it himself. Looks like WSJ was selling us poison. Let's give them the death penalty.

[avigil2]

And the leader of an evil corporate empire, contiunes.

[hober_mallow]

"... In a statement released early Wednesday morning, a family spokesman said: "It is our most fervent hope that in the years to come, The Wall Street Journal will continue to enjoy, and deserve, the universal admiration and respect in which it is held all over the world."

But in the end, cash talks.

So spare me the sanctimony.

[johnsinger33]

For all the *** that Jim Cramer gets, I bet he's revelling in his win here. He's been speculating on this outcome since May http://www.stocktagger.com/2007/07/cramer-speculates-on-higher-price-for.html

[down-ndirty]

the liberal branch of the entertainment/news industry pretty much have to resort using loud mouth comedians, cartoons and bare chested bimbos to attract enough attention from thier audiences. But unfortunatly, thier audiences have the attention span of a retarded gnat that they dont stick around if it does not make any farting noise.
Posted by xzavierbrown at 08:10 PM : Jul 31, 2007
_______________________

Speaking of bimbo...what was the name of that bimbo that o'reilly was poking? You know? The falafal bimbo?

Man (I use the term loosely) you must have been born with a hot rock up your ***. You're sure spewing a lot of hate. I'll bet you think you're the funniest thing on this topic board.

Speaking of retards...LOL!!!

[down-ndirty]

because he does not have any substance on all other than whinnings and childish cr ap.

Posted by xzavierbrown at 08:00 PM : Jul 31, 2007
_______________________

Yeah, the lies that hannity, limpballs, and o'really? tell are much bigger money makers. That's definitely a no-********. LOL!! Just goes to show how low the mentalities of the "no-spin" listeners are.

Franken went under because he was too far left for people like me. Those other three asssholes are way too friggin' far to the extreme in the other direction. They are so far out that they don't know what they are talking about most of the time. o'really? just rants and raves and tells lie after lie. FALAFAL!!! LOL!!!

Your phuckking heros, I'll bet!!

[mike71067]

"No one man has had more to do with destroying journalism than Murdoch. This is a sad day for those that value truth and integrity over propaganda and fluff."
-Posted by micma at 09:19 AM : Aug 01, 2007

You mean he's as bad as Ted Turner with his left-wing CNN (which Fox News consistently beats in the ratings)? It's a sad day alright - but only for liberal bed-wetters.

[mbcsmith]

No one man has had more to do with destroying journalism than Murdoch. This is a sad day for those that value truth and integrity over propaganda and fluff.



Posted by micma at 09:19 AM : Aug 01, 2007

truth and integrity, you mean like CBS who has hired Clinton personnel to run the news department?

[gunownerdan]

Now an even smaller handful of billionaires control the mass media.
The dumber they can keep us, the easier we will be to control.

[micma-2009]

No one man has had more to do with destroying journalism than Murdoch. This is a sad day for those that value truth and integrity over propaganda and fluff.

[mike71067]

Murdoch's a smart guy. He has been willing to take over a business or start one and lose money for years before turning a profit. He sticks with it, and it pays off in the long run.

When he started the Fox News Channel, critics complained that it was all flash, attitude, and slant; however, it has consistently ranked far above CNN and all the other news stations in the ratings.

As for the liberal crybabies who shiff about the "conservative bias", they seem to be perfectly ok with the liberal bias of CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, etc. But when ONE news channel exists that runs counter to all that, the liberals lose control of their bodily functions and bowel movement all over themselves.

[brianbwb-2009]

And now, turning to the stock market, the Dow jumped 10,000 points to close at 22,000, stranded and poor's lost 5,000 points on news of a continued housing market slump, and the realization that all stocks have absolutely no real value at all, and are no more than tax dodges for the wealthy, and cash cows for corrupt CEOs.

In sports, VP Cheney is on another hunting vacation, this time in Michigan, where he hopes to accidentally shoot several fish, and John Conyers...

[uhhuh8]

The WSJ recently raised their newspaper price from $1.00 to $1.50. That's a 50% increase. What nerve! No wonder the Bancrofts had to sell out.

RIP WSJ