Rupert Murdoch to buy Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by pdham, Jul 30, 2007.

  1. pdham macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Location:
    Madison
    #1
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/16/AR2007071602075.html

    Don't think I am a huge fan of this...
     
  2. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #2
    A helluva lot of people are worried about the objectivity of future reporting in the WSJ. Not as to lying or editorial policies so much as, "But what was spiked?" And, of course, recommendations which might well be improperly friendly to Murdoch's other financial interests.

    'Rat
     
  3. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
  4. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #4
    He can have it. Dailies as we know them are dinosaurs well on their way to extinction.
     
  5. Aea macrumors 6502a

    Aea

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
    #5
    WSJ (Profits | Progress | Success | Estimates) are ( going up | rising | skyrocketing), and now reports of dswoodley, an (unamerican | amoral | liberal) trying to (slander | flame) the recent actions of (unaffiliated | separate company) News Corp over their controversial purchase in the latest quarter.
     
  6. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #6
    of course. How silly of me. :rolleyes:
     
  7. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #7
    Boy, this is the kind of deal that would've been killed in a hot second in the old FTC/FCC/SEC days. Now Murdoch's gonna get to manipulate the news about the stock market. Just peachy keen.

    I fully expect the WSJ and DJ to get the Fox News treatment -- i.e., there'll be editors and executives sending memos telling people how they expect them to spin the news on any given day.

    This is just nuts.
     
  8. ham_man macrumors 68020

    ham_man

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    #8
    The editorial page of the WSJ is already in line with Murdoch's political views, but I don't think that he is going to touch the rest of the paper. Everyone is waiting for one little slip up so they can bury him.
     
  9. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #9
    We're long past that after the Roger Ailes memos, but no one is stopping him, so he keeps going. No one should own that much media. This is just another in a long line. Haven't these people ever watched Citizen Kane? Heard the story behind it? No?

    It's not the slant I worry about, it's the manipulations and outright lies.
     
  10. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #10
    If you aren't worried about the massive consolidation of media ownership in this country that's happened in the past decade or so you should be.


    By "old days" I assume you mean before all the deregulation from the Telecommunications Act of 1996.


    Lethal
     
  11. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #11
    Massive consolidation of media ownership??? TV viewership continues to drop. Newspaper subscription continue to decline by 1% per year. Consolidators can consolidate all they want. What good does it do if no one is watching or reading? This story is a non-event.
     
  12. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #12
    .


    The doomsdayers are too strident and so are you. Whether you like it or not, the WSJ is extremely important to the financial industry and wields far more clout than you think.

    Consolidation is bad for everyone and although alternative forms of media have been popping up like mushrooms, the decision makers still read the WSJ.

    Murdoch is in a position to influence the world by owning the WSJ. The good thing is, he's getting old and can't live forever. Due to his bedhopping, its doubtful that there will be a smooth transition upon his demise and the breakup of newscorp is all but certain. The problem lies with the damage that's already been done.
     
  13. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #13
    I'm sorry. Speaking softly and in soothing tones was never my forte. You can't mean what you say unless you say what you mean.
     
  14. steamboat26 macrumors 65816

    steamboat26

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Location:
    Arlington VA
    #14
    And now the WSJ will overcompensate for years of "liberal bias" with articles that have an insanely conservative bias.
     
  15. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #15
    I remember during the heady days of the dotcom boom when the death knell was being sounded for the "old economy". Mining, agriculture, manufacturing were all going to be relegated to the back seat and were no longer seen as relevant to the "new economy".

    Lo and behold, the dotcom bubble appeared and the "old economy" took off like gangbusters. A lot of that has to do with China and India but a lot of it also has to do with the "old economy" reinventing itself.

    The Guardian, one of my favorite newspapers for the last 4 years, has slowly been reinventing itself. It has more interactive content, more multimedia and in general is responding to the changing tides of global media. It also changed from the standard broadsheet format to the more commuter friendly "Berliner" format.

    While it's possible that a paper form of newspapers may disappear, to write off traditional media is really short sighted. I do enjoy the varying viewpoints that blogs provide but when it comes to overviews of major issues, I'd rather read what a trained journalist has to say than some armchair hack.

    Speaking your mind is all well and good but if what you say more properly belongs to a typical rubbish tip, is anyone going to listen? :D
     
  16. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #16
    Okay I apologize for maybe giving the wrong impression. The decision makers who read the WSJ are usually pretty smart, well-educated and experienced people. They probably will not be buffaloed by a change in op-ed stance or even biased reporting in the business world.
     
  17. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #17
    So where do you think the people that are turning off their TVs and canceling their newspaper subscriptions are getting their news? Wanna bet on how many of the top news sites are owned by one of the half-dozen giant media conglomerates in the US?

    Obviously you are fine w/a handful of people controlling the vast majority of what you hear, see, and read in this country but not everyone is. It's long, but this is a pretty good
    article by Ted Turner about the consolidation of media ownership.

    Lethal
     
  18. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #18
    The internet...it's on computers now, too.
     
  19. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #19
    Killer reading comprehension skills you got there, dswoodley.


    Lethal
     
  20. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #20

    Ok, Mr. "old media is dead" :D Where do you get your news from?

    I believe you've mentioned that you list to O'Reilly, so Fox is obviously one of them. How many are truly independent?
     
  21. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #21
    You know there hundreds if not thousands of "news" sites you can choose from that are not owned by those "6" mega-giants (i suppose you can't tell me who they actually are though). If you are relying on big broadcast conglomerates, you are only helping out their causes. Come on, man, you can go independent!!
     
  22. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #22
    Dying, not dead - but I think it's inevitable.

    I do listen to O'reilly sometimes (I can't watch his show though). Fox doesn't admit, though their other two-bit players allude to it, but Fox hates O'reilly because he doesn't toe the network line.

    I go to NPR, more blogs than I can count, dailykos, cnn, fox, abc, and now, thanks to you, the CSM.
     
  23. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #23
    They are pretty unknown so I'm not surprised you've never heard companies like Disney, CBS, Viacom, Time/Warner, News Corp, General Electric, etc.,. Of course there are also a number of "small" companies like Clear Channel and Tribune too.

    I get my news from a variety of sources (big and small, national and local, foreign and domestic), but that's beside the point. I also don't live next to a toxic waste dump (*insert Los Angeles joke here*) but that doesn't mean I wouldn't care if companies wanted to turn the Northeast into a giant, radioactive dump.

    Like I said before, you may not care about this consolidation of information (and with it power as we are in the "information age" after all) but, IMO, if you value free speech and the free exchange of ideas you should.


    Lethal
     
  24. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #24
    Doesn't Viacom own CBS, or is this another CBS?
     
  25. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #25
    They split a couple of years ago back into two separate companies (Viacom and CBS Corp). Viacom basically got the cable and movie assests and CBS Corp got everything else (music, TV, publishing,etc., ). And just to be confusing the company formerly known as Viacom is now "CBS Corp" so the company currently called Viacom is technically different than the company called Viacom that existed before the split.:rolleyes:


    Lethal
     

Share This Page