Imagining A Murdoch-Owned Dow Jones

from the a-spark-of-vision dept

Thu, Jun 28th 2007 3:28pm — Joseph Weisenthal

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.

9 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

andy, 28 Jun 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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Real Stanislav G, 28 Jun 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bob, 28 Jun 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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Real Stanislav G, 28 Jun 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 foxnews.com 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.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - SailorRipley, 2 Jul 2007 @ 7:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: not to mention
        you only dumped foxnews.com 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".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Jun 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Byron Ware, 29 Jun 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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Swmapthing, 30 Jun 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]