Rupert Murdoch on Wednesday clinched victory in his battle to acquire Dow Jones after securing support from enough Bancroft family members to secure majority backing for his $5bn cash offer for the owner of The Wall Street Journal.
The breakthrough came after nearly four months of often torturous negotiations between the media mogul and the fractious clan of heirs to a family which has controlled the leading US financial newspaper for more than a century.
Will this mean that New York Times will also be up for grabs? No says, FT's Lex column. Part of the problem with the Bancroft holdings was that it is fragmented. At NYT, Arthur Sulzberger calls all the shots.
1 comment:
It will take some time to see the impact Murdoch will have on the traditions at the Wall Street Journal. To many, the WSJ is "conservative" - yet, their position on immigration has been consistently one that has advocated openness - The WSJ, while acknowledging the problem of illegal immigration, has recognized that the reason for such illegal immigration has to do with US policy on immigration. The WSJ has consistently stood for "Free people, free markets" - and that has not been a consistent stand of mainline Conservatives (im my own opinion). The WSJ has been balanced when it comes to President Bush and his economic policies - they have assailed him for his expansion of Federal Control over a significant chunk of the economy - their support of Bush on Iraq has been consistent - wrong at certain times (IMO), but consistent and principled ... The WSJ has consistently championed the concept of "dynamic" analysis when it comes to the economy/taxes ... For example, the idea that "lowering" taxes can (and does) lead to "increased" revenue is a concept that many liberals refuse to accept - even when presented by data/information ... I have not seen the "Laffer Curve" discussed anywhere else as vigorously as it has been on the editorial pages of the WSJ and articles ... I have also yet to see any other publication place the proper perspective on "deficits" (trade/budget) - reminding people of what it really means to the economy and what drives the economy ... I have yet to see any other national publication champion the "ingenuity" of humans as the driving force for the economy as the WSJ
The world has gone mad it seems on the issue of "Global Warming" - A few weeks ago, the WSj reminded us of how societies get alarmed about things and how one/few individuals come along and turn everything upside down - Borlaugh came along and showed that "population" is not the problem as Ehrlich was claiming ... (Father of the green revolution, the population alarmists were so ticked off at Borlaugh, they tried to get his funding cut off) ...
The world seems to have gone mad on the issue of Global Warming with few politicians willing to state publicly what the costs will be - IF significant limits are placed on emissions while limiting how power can be generated or how people can live ... the WSJ reminds us that if there is a real problem, we will find a solution - and I am sure when such solutions arrive, Al Gore and his henchmen will be disappointed that their crying wolf was disregarded and disappointed that again, human ingenuity prevailed.
Post a Comment