Which would be worse for Dow Jones: Murdoch, Burkle or Pearson?
So Pearson, which owns the Financial Times and part of the Economist, is talking to GE, owner of CNBC, about putting in a bid for Dow Jones. And now Ron Burkle is apparently contemplating on a bid, too.
Which puts the much-discussed dangers posed by Rupert Murdoch's bid for Dow Jones in perspective. Yes, Murdoch has repeatedly toadied to China and interfered with editorial decisions at his papers. But you've got to worry that a Pearson-Dow Jones combination might eventually result in the demise of either the Journal or the FT. And Burkle, best known for union-friendly supermarket takeovers and a Page-Six-unfriendly sting operation, is almost a complete cipher, with no record running media properties. Given his Democratic Party ties, he'd certainly be sorely tempted to mess with the independence of the Journal's editorial pages, if not its news pages. But beyond that, who knows what he'd do?
Murdoch, by contrast, is a lifelong newspaperman who clearly wants to strengthen and expand the Journal--but might do it in a way that will drive some current fans of the paper crazy. Which, in comparison with the other alternatives making themselves apparent over the past few days, doesn't sound all that horrible, does it?
-
1
"Given his Democratic Party ties, he'd certainly be sorely tempted to mess with the independence of the Journal's editorial pages, if not its news pages."
A newspaper's ownership should be able to "interfere" with its editorial pages -- and I think it would be a really interesting idea to do a complete makeover of the WSJ op-eds -- even under Murdoch -- because the only purpose they serve at this point is providing reliable source of fodder for snarky progressive bloggers on slow news days.
Do keep us posted on the possibility of Burkle purchasing the Journal. I've found a company that sells smelling salts whose stock is already taking off with all the swooning going on at the mere possibility of someone with (HORRORS!!!) "Democratic ties" taking over...
-
2
Yeah, I could have phrased that better. The issue with Burkle isn't his politics. It's that his demonstrated skill set is buying and selling supermarkets, which doesn't appear to have a whole lot to do with running media companies (or smelling salts manufacturers).
-
3
I've subscribed to the Wall Street Journal for over 12 years, and I confess that I've almost never read the op-ed pages. I don't pay attention to the politics of the owner of a newspaper. However, what makes the Journal a premier newspaper is the range and depth of stories that tie into business in unexpected ways. In every issue of the Journal, I manage to say "I never knew that" at least once. If that changed, I would drop the subscription.
Most Popular »
- Tennessee Mayor Accuses Barack Obama Of Hating On Charlie Brown, Peanuts
- Wii Fit Plus Review
- NV Sen Poll: Reid In Trouble
- Obama Shifts Date of Copenhagen Visit
- The PlayStation Turns 15, We Reminisce
- 'Forgotten Man' II: Two-Thirds of Jobless Blue-Collar
- 135 Money-Saving Resources and Tips, Special Holiday Season Edition
- Twitter App Showdown: Echofon Pro vs Tweetie 2
- False Economy: Think You're Saving Money? Think Again
- Loving The Joke
- How Strong Is the Evidence Against Amanda Knox?
- Will Federal Spending Mistrust Mean the End of Obama's Audacity
- Amanda Knox, Convicted of Murder in Italy
- Amanda Knox Testifies: The Murder Trial That Has Gripped Italy
- Nicolas Sarkozy: A French Paradox
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Astronomers Spot Planet-Like Object GJ 758 B in Orbit
- Foxy Knoxy Case Still Roils Italy
- Hate Your Job? Here's How to Reshape It
- Are TV Chefs Taking on the Latest Diet Craze?













RSS