Imagining A Murdoch-Owned Dow Jones

from the a-spark-of-vision dept

The endgame appears to be near in the Rupert Murdoch-Dow Jones drama. Yesterday, it was reported that the two sides have come to an agreement over what changes Murdoch would be allowed to make should he assume control of the company. At this point, it all comes down to whether or not the Bancroft family is ready to pull the trigger and actually cede ownership of the company. Assuming the deal does go through, it's natural to wonder what a Murdoch-led Dow Jones would look like. In an interview with Time Magazine (via Romenesko), Murdoch rehashes the standard rhetoric about how it would be foolish to destroy an asset (as many fear) that cost him $5 billion to acquire. Later in the interview, he tosses out the idea of spending $100 million to hire the top 200 business journalists in the world, while turning the Wall Street Journal into a free, online-only newspaper. This isn't the kind of plan that's likely to happen at any point in the near term, but it does reflect a willingness to think creatively. Of course, the idea still rests on the basic notion that the key to a successful media company is to be the owner of the best content. A paper like the Wall Street Journal can do better with this approach than most, because quality business journalism remains valuable. But over time, a strategy based on paying enormous sums to consolidate the world's best business journalism won't be able to overcome the ongoing deflation in the value of content.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1. identicon
    andy, Jun 28th, 2007 @ 4:38pm

    not to mention

    how deflated the value of the content would be if rupert murdoch owned it. his name alone is repels credibility... the last thing we need is the journal going as sensationalist as fox news.

    and the top 200 business journalists in the world? wouldn't they already be working for the WSJ?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 28th, 2007 @ 4:54pm

    Once a company is sold, any deals regarding how it is or is not to be run fade away. The sellers have their money and soon lose interest in an expensive fight. It's all eyewash to make the deal happen.

    I'm no fan of Murdoch's enterprises; but he is one smart businessman.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. identicon
    The Real Stanislav G, Jun 28th, 2007 @ 5:02pm

    Re: not to mention

    Wait... you condem Fox as sensationalist, yet you read (and reply on) Techdirt? Please. All media is sensationalist, but blog-style media (cf Techdirt) is at least as bad as "real" news organizations, if not worse.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    Bob, Jun 28th, 2007 @ 7:06pm

    Re: Re: not to mention

    If you don't see the blatancy of Fox then perhaps you're not as objective as you think you are.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. identicon
    The Real Stanislav G, Jun 28th, 2007 @ 9:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: not to mention

    Are you talking about blatancy in sensationalism or blatancy in political leanings? If the former, what's objectivity have to do with it? My guess is that they're being judged more harshly on the sensationalism because the "blog-news" community tends to be a bit more in the CBS political camp.

    For reference, I'm entirely objective. I dumped as my major news site because of the hype some months ago over Britney's missing undergarments, which, sadly, was also present on the other major (and minor) news outlets along with the rest of the garbage they all tend to peddle.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 29th, 2007 @ 12:43am

    is there anyone left online that prefers to get their news from many sources instead of focusing on the negative effects of some corporate rearrangement? this is not some rerun of a macgyver episode from the 80's with murdock playing the villian. go back to sleep. whatever decisions are made on this transaction are nothing but huccups on the field, and you're on the bench. you have a voice. quit wasting it speaking of money. life is more than numbers.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. identicon
    Byron Ware, Jun 29th, 2007 @ 5:56am

    murdoch's - dow...

    Being a fan of "fnc", they play both fields well, I do find
    it scarey on what big bucks can do. This just not good!

    Good Day

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. identicon
    Swmapthing, Jun 30th, 2007 @ 6:08am

    Or is Rupert going to turn on a quick link to features and advertisments in the newspapers, mags, etc.

    Is he setting up for a interactive power play.

    News of the World is testing it. All the mobile web user will need to do is qode it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. identicon
    SailorRipley, Jul 2nd, 2007 @ 7:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: not to mention

    you only dumped because of the hype over Britney some months back??
    Not because of their total inability to be even remotely objective? (and despite any claims, no other "camp" comes anywhere near Fox, regardless of the direction of the slant)

    Some (if not most) of us objective news consumers have dumped Fox (entirely) years ago, as any objective person can judge that Fox way further out there than "slightly slanted".

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Hide this ad »
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Chat
Hide this ad »
Recent Stories
Advertisement - Amazon Prime Music
Hide this ad »


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.