Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:26 am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:45 am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:00 am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:36 am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:37 pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:41 am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:32 am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:29 pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:09 pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:47 am EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

Murdoch-Dow Jones Roundup
Larry Kudlow calls the proposed purchase of Dow Jones by News Corp "totally awesome", while investor Michael Price says "this really would be unbelievable". Everybody's excited, although it's not clear exactly what it is they're excited about. (Actually, in Price's case it is clear: he owns 350,000 shares of Dow Jones, so he's excited about having made over $7 million today.)
Barry Ritholtz reckons it's not the newspaper which is driving this deal: "Murdoch's obvious interest is using the Dow Jones infrastructure to power the News Corp Business channel which will be competing with CNBC sometime in the coming year," he says. Meanwhile, the New York Times tells us that "The bid for Dow Jones in part reflects Mr. Murdoch’s belief that combining the company’s print and online assets with a television outlet could prove immensely valuable and competitive."
I'm sure that Murdoch is justifying the $5 billion price tag by looking at TV synergies. But I also have a very strong feeling that what he really wants is the Journal, price be damned. It's the closest thing that the US has to a quality national newspaper, and I'm sure that Murdoch would want to move it further in that direction, making it more accessible to a broader audience and competing more with the New York Times. The Journal, right now, is bone dry, and that's not an attribute one readily ascribes to Murdoch properties.
One question which has been bugging me: Murdoch is known for micromanaging the editorial side of his newspapers. If you edit the Sun, or the Times, or the New York Post, you will talk to Rupert a lot, and he will tell you what to print. Why didn't any heads roll after the New York Post splashed Dick Gephardt all over its front page, saying he was John Kerry's choice for VP? 'Cos the story came straight from Rupert.
All serious US newspapers have an almost religious belief in editorial independence, the Wall Street Journal included. In Rupert's mind, freedom of the press belongs to those who own one, and I can't imagine him recusing himself from editorial decisions. Whether and how he tries to square that circle will be fascinating to see.
Comments
If you are commenting using a Facebook account, your profile information may be displayed with your comment depending on your privacy settings. By leaving the 'Post to Facebook' box selected, your comment will be published to your Facebook profile in addition to the space below.





