big fish eat the little ones, big fish eat the little ones -- not my problem, give me some

July 31, 2007 10:42 AM

As usual, Rupert Murdoch gets what he wants. Despite the concerns many in the US have expressed about Murdoch's tendency to leverage his media assets in pursuit of his personal business interests with ruthless disregard for the public interest (all within the bounds of current law, of course), Murdoch now appears to have succeeded in his controversial bid to take over Dow Jones. (Newsfilter)
posted by saulgoodman (18 comments total)

I for one welcome our Murdochian overlords.
posted by blucevalo at 10:49 AM on July 31, 2007

But a family spokesman issued a statement cautioning that the canvass of family members and trusts was still under way, adding, “Any suggestion that the process has been completed and/or that a particular level of support has been established is at this point premature.”

this is the second fpp about this sale being done before it's even done. patience is a virtue.
posted by andywolf at 10:51 AM on July 31, 2007

How long before the WSJ starts featuring a Page 6 girl?
posted by caddis at 10:53 AM on July 31, 2007

Yet another obituary thread?
posted by hermitosis at 10:53 AM on July 31, 2007 [1 favorite]

At $60 a share, News Corporation is paying a heavy premium for a stock that traded around $36 before the offer became public on May 1...

For Mr. Murdoch, the Dow Jones takeover gives him not only one of the world’s great media trophy properties and a larger voice in national affairs, but also a ready source of material and credibility for his newest big gamble, the Fox Business Channel he plans to begin in October.

Politics aside, Murdoch is the fucking man!
posted by phaedon at 10:58 AM on July 31, 2007

andywolf: so do you think the NY Times piece is overstating the case for how done this deal is?
posted by saulgoodman at 11:01 AM on July 31, 2007

LOLZRICHFUCKER
posted by quonsar at 11:04 AM on July 31, 2007 [1 favorite]

I don't understand how this is against the interest of the public. WSJ is a paid-service to which I subscribe. If I don't like the service, I can cancel at any time.
posted by b_thinky at 11:05 AM on July 31, 2007

hard to pick exactly who the current #1 Satan is these days...so many to choose from.
posted by aiq at 11:05 AM on July 31, 2007

Oh, and the Murdoch empire just bought Amstrad over in the UK.
posted by Artw at 11:09 AM on July 31, 2007

well, the family says it's premature and not finished yet. can it get any clearer that a transaction hasn't been completed then when one of the main players makes the statement above? until a signature is on the dotted line i'm not gonna get my knickers in a bunch about it. sure it looks likely, but if i were to interview for a killer job i wouldn't go celebrate with my friends before i get hired. even if the interview went incredibly well, even if they say "you pretty much got it." cause who knows, someone may totally kick my proverbial ass. some member of that family may put down their foot and refuse, cause if i remember correctly they stated they weren't exactly fans of his. it's still speculation.
posted by andywolf at 11:11 AM on July 31, 2007

I don't understand how this is against the interest of the public. WSJ is a paid-service to which I subscribe. If I don't like the service, I can cancel at any time.

because in order for a democracy to properly function people need access to information. when the ownership of companies that disseminate information is relegated to fewer and fewer people then they can literally control our perception. sure you can cancel, but who do you go to next, murdoch's golf buddies news service? this country is in a really really bad place, imho, that's due in large part to consolidation of media services. you have to put more and more effort in getting real information and people just don't have the time cause they're also working more and more hours. add net neutrality to the equation and we could be in some dire straights of knowing what the hell is really going on.
posted by andywolf at 11:23 AM on July 31, 2007 [1 favorite]

"Despite the concerns many in the US have expressed"? It's not like we all get to vote on this.
posted by jjg at 11:25 AM on July 31, 2007

Murdoch will tarnish a journalistic jewel -- "Wall Street Journal's image will suffer from association with News Corp."
posted by ericb at 11:26 AM on July 31, 2007

If I don't like the service, I can cancel at any time.

What if you don't like the country the Murdoch-directed-WSJ-editorial-page-reading droids produce? Move to Canada?
posted by DU at 11:29 AM on July 31, 2007

well, the family says it's premature and not finished yet. can it get any clearer that a transaction hasn't been completed then when one of the main players makes the statement above?

Reported 32 minutes ago by MSNBC --

Murdoch Clinches Deal for Publisher of Journal

"Media baron Rupert Murdoch Tuesday clinched a $5 billion deal to take over the publisher of The Wall Street Journal, achieving his long-treasured goal of adding the esteemed business newspaper to his global stable of properties.

Murdoch's News Corp. has won the support of 32 percent of the Dow Jones voting shares controlled by the Bancroft family, enough to ensure a comfortable margin of victory, The Wall Street Journal reported in its online edition.

'The Bancroft family has accepted,' John Prestbo, editor and executive director of Dow Jones Indexes, told reporters on Tuesday in Chicago. Dow Jones 'will be part of News Corp.,' he said. Prestbo told Reuters the information came from an internal company memo."

Looks "done" to me.
posted by ericb at 11:31 AM on July 31, 2007

Looks to me like if this goes through there's going to be an opening in the financial news business for a publisher who can carry on whatever the strengths of the WSJ were. NYT, Wash Post and Warren Buffet (who owns a stake in the Wash Post) and Bloomberg and anyone else should be taking note...

On the other hand Murdoch has bought properties that he's barely touched (editorially) because he knows a winning formula when he sees it. Not that it forgives Faux news, but even that might be a case of him not messing with a formula that was already there somewhat.
posted by Skygazer at 11:33 AM on July 31, 2007

Even assuming that the "public interest" argument is valid, what does Murdoch have to do with this? Why is it somehow immoral for him to use companies he owns to promote a viewpoint he agrees with? Is it just because you don't like his opinions? GYOFWSJ.
posted by nasreddin at 11:35 AM on July 31, 2007