Crawford Hill, Exemplary Epistolizer

Required reading: Crawford Hill's letter to the rest of the Bancroft family, explaining in glorious detail how and why they deserve their fate of selling out to Rupert Murdoch. (Yes, Crawford Hill is actually a member of the Bancroft family, and not some local landmark climbed during the annual reunion. Apparently he also goes by "Bumpy".) One of many gems:

Chris Bancroft in a recent email (7.13.07) said the following: "We have been given a responsibility we never had before. Decide the fate of a business that has lasted over 100 years and is considered the best in the world."
Actually, Chris, we have had that responsibility all along. There is nothing new about having to be responsible, active and engaged owners. We, despite the attempts of a few, have not until very, very recently acted as successful owners do. We are actually now paying the price for our passivity over the past 25 years.

It's undeniable that newspapers should be owned by people who take that ownership seriously. The Bancrofts have, judging by their (in)actions over the past 25 years, failed that test. And even if they don't sell to Murdoch, there's no chance that they will suddenly become the "active and engaged owners" of Bumpy's letter. On the other hand, every Murdoch alive is consitutionally incapable of being anything but an active and engaged owner.

If you own a business, and you run it down, and someone comes along who can run it better, you should sell it. That's capitalism, that is. And I doubt anybody on the WSJ editorial page would say any different.