Wall Street Journal owners officially considering joining the Borg

May 31, 2007 11:01 PM

Wall Street Journal owners officially considering joining the Borg
Minority owner Jim Ottoway vehemently opposed. One wonders what the opinion of a Senator from New York is?
posted by specialk420 (27 comments total)

The WSJ editorial page would implode.
posted by pruner at 11:35 PM on May 31, 2007

Would we notice the difference?
posted by dirigibleman at 11:38 PM on May 31, 2007

Would we notice the difference?

Well, we might finally get that nifty gold standard they're all raving about.

'course, Robert Bartley's dead and all, so maybe nothing...
posted by Bixby23 at 12:16 AM on June 1, 2007

Well it's the principle of the thing.
posted by Cyclopsis Raptor at 12:36 AM on June 1, 2007

Just imagine the myspace tie-ins.
posted by Kellydamnit at 12:56 AM on June 1, 2007

This one doesn't wonder that.

It's not like the WSJ OpEd page isn't already conservatard central.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:59 AM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]

Murdoch is betting on Hillary winning next year, and has already aligned his media empire and campaign donations with her. Having the editorial board of the WSJ in his pocket will certainly help with La Causa.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:02 AM on June 1, 2007

It astonishes me, as an election anorak, that Hillary is even in contention, let alone being touted as a likely winner.

I mean, she's very conservative by my standards, but I remember her time in the White House very well, and I assumed she'd a) alienated the US centre of opinion by being perceived as a left-wing harridan and b) alienated the netroots by equivocation on the war.

Goes to show you what very expensive political consultancy can do. And don't just say she's not won it yet. I'm impressed they've kept her in the game. Murdoch would be their dream catch, too.
posted by imperium at 3:36 AM on June 1, 2007

There's a typo in this post. You misspelled "News Corp" as "The Borg". For those of us not as up on hating Fox as the rest of you, we might not realize that your favorite corporate threat is that particular corporate threat. You might want to consider putting a different headline than your primary link text next time.
posted by Eideteker at 3:50 AM on June 1, 2007

Well, most certainly the editorial page won't notice the change.
However, the rest of the paper...the part that actually reports news...would be drastically changed. Regardless of what you may think of the op-ed side of the business, the reporting side has been relatively even-handed and matter-of-fact in it's work. FoxNews-ing the reporting would be a disaster, and only damage WSJ's credibility.
posted by Thorzdad at 3:52 AM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]

This is straight-up, boring NewsFilter. I don't really need to get my morning news briefings twice, from the wires and MetaFilter.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:56 AM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]

I'd imagine the folks at Financial Times would be delighted by this change.
posted by Goofyy at 4:19 AM on June 1, 2007

Resistance is futile.
posted by spirit72 at 5:30 AM on June 1, 2007

It's amusing getting the WSJ news alerts on these stories. I bet the journalists feel a bit conflicted.
posted by smackfu at 5:38 AM on June 1, 2007

So the WSJ's reportage would become as hysterically full of lies and right-wing insanity as its editorial page already is?
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:47 AM on June 1, 2007 [2 favorites]

Wooohoo, does this mean titties on page three, say it's so.
posted by mattoxic at 6:51 AM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]

First of all, it isn't just the Wall Street Journal, it's the Dow Jones Company, i.e. the company that picks which stock enter the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the most talked about (and to professionals the most totally meaningless) financial index. If you have your tinfoil hat screwed on nice and tight, you might realize that this means that News Corp could rebalance the index whenever and however it likes, to show growth in the index when that suits some objective or to show a declien when that is politically expedient. But again, you'd need some good quality aluminum foil. Like Reynolds, not that store brand crap.

The Journal's reporting consistently wins pulitzers, and their 9-11 coverage won the pulitzer that year.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:04 AM on June 1, 2007

mattoxic, in keeping with WSJ tradition those titties would be in the form of drawings.
posted by Ber at 7:08 AM on June 1, 2007

If you have your tinfoil hat screwed on nice and tight, you might realize that this means that News Corp could rebalance the index whenever and however it likes, to show growth in the index when that suits some objective or to show a declien when that is politically expedient.

The DJIA components aren't exactly a secret and it's a simple price-weighted index. Anything shady would be painfully obvious.
posted by mullacc at 7:27 AM on June 1, 2007

It's also not exactly a secret that financial journalism can have an effect on stock price, and that Mr. Murdoch has displayed a, let's say "lax," view on journalistic integrity. I don't think you have to see conspiracies in everything to see something just a teeny bit untoward about this.
posted by quite unimportant at 7:55 AM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]

Ooh......the youtube video in my original link is now borked, and thus I have no illustration for my point. Serves me right for self linking.
posted by quite unimportant at 7:59 AM on June 1, 2007

In other news, the world at large is officially considering getting its financial news elsewhere.
posted by shmegegge at 8:06 AM on June 1, 2007

Future Headline: Murdoch PWNs Global Economy, Says "Choke on It, Suckaz!"
posted by saulgoodman at 8:20 AM on June 1, 2007

Wooohoo, does this mean titties on page three, say it's so.

In that WSJ woodcut style? Hot.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:54 AM on June 1, 2007

I was still working at the paper when the bid was first made. Regardless of how insane and frothing the editorial board is (and, come to think of it, I couldn't read the book reviews either without thinking I'd picked up a copy of The Onion by mistake), the journalists who work for the WSJ hold themselves to very high ethical standards. Having been privy to articles as they make their way through the editorial process, I can assure you that this truly is the rule, despite the fact a lame article makes its way on to the page every now and then. I can't stress enough the dismay with which this news was met by the majority of the staff when the story first broke.
posted by stagewhisper at 9:57 AM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]

quite unimportant said: It's also not exactly a secret that financial journalism can have an effect on stock price, and that Mr. Murdoch has displayed a, let's say "lax," view on journalistic integrity.

I wasn't trying to defend Murdoch, just wanted to point out the improbability of his shenanigans taking the form of DJIA index tampering.
posted by mullacc at 1:38 PM on June 1, 2007

will the wall street journal become even more PRAVDA like?
posted by specialk420 at 2:00 PM on June 2, 2007