# Murdoch to acquire WSJ -- will anything change? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 31, 2007, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murdoch-to-acquire-wsj-will-anything-change/413871 "2007-07-31T20:41:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2007, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murdoch-to-acquire-wsj-will-anything-change/413871/1 "2007-07-31T20:41:06Z")
Murdoch [finally got support from enough Bancroft family members](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073100896.html?hpid=topnews) that it looks like his takeover of the _Wall Street Journal_ is a go. The WSJ editorial page already reflects Murdoch’s business-conservative political views, but its news coverage is notably independent and reputable. Will that change? [Analysis by media critic Eric Alterman:](http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070813/alterman) > [@](#): > > Rupert Murdoch might profitably be viewed as the Frankenstein monster of this multifaceted identity crisis. Take a look at his flagship American publication: the New York Post. It’s dumb, celebrity-obsessed, spineless, corrupt, unreliable and reactionary, and even with all its pandering, it still manages to lose, by its own estimation, $30 million to $50 million a year. > > It’s not just the Post that Murdoch operates as a de facto nonprofit. The Times of London lost $89 million in 2004, and according to a News Corp. executive quoted in a recent Wall Street Journal article, even the Australian “doesn’t consistently make money.” Murdoch doesn’t care. Newspapers make up just 14 percent of News Corp.'s operating income. What they cost in cash, they more than make up for in political and propaganda value. Examine any Murdoch newspaper–or book publishing or network news operation for that matter–and you will find any number of clear, inarguable abrogations of journalistic principles in the service of the immediate interests of Murdoch’s corporate empire. Sometimes they curry favor with, or put pressure on, local politicians. Sometimes they manufacture “grassroots” support for some company-owned enterprise or Murdoch-friendly politician. Whatever actual news the media properties report is almost beside the point. When news values and business interests clash, business wins. When Murdoch’s right-wing ideology and his business clash, business wins. Business always wins. Hence, Murdoch’s editors and producers will sometimes find themselves forced to slant the news on behalf of center-left politicians like Tony Blair or Hillary Clinton. It’s not that Murdoch is open-minded; it’s that he’s single-minded. > > \ > > For nonconservatives the Dow Jones dance of death with Rupert Murdoch presents an additional complication. For all the–deserved–praise being heaped on the paper’s news pages of late, its editorial pages already operate with Murdoch-like sleaze. News staffers frequently wake up to find their reporting attacked and undermined by the editorial page ideologues. When speaking anonymously, Journal reporters have been known to say things like “To have [editorial page editor] Paul Gigot as our captain is bullshit. It’s not for real,” and “They’re wrong all the time. They lack credibility to the point that the emperor has no clothes.” And yet without the power and prestige of the newspaper in which these edit page opinions come wrapped, they would be taken no more seriously than, say, the latest ravings of Rush Limbaugh or David Horowitz. Alterman goes on to suggest this change might be a good thing if it clarifies to the public the degree to which the corporate interests control the mainstream media already. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2007, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murdoch-to-acquire-wsj-will-anything-change/413871/2 "2007-07-31T21:08:38Z")
Will anything change with the WSJ? Public Radio International’s _Marketplace_ show was referring to the Dow Jones Industrial Average as the “Murdoch Average” recently. I think they were kidding. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2007, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murdoch-to-acquire-wsj-will-anything-change/413871/3 "2007-07-31T21:32:03Z")
Murdoch is not going to start colorizing the WSJ, throwing nekkid women on page 3, or anything else that would render useless the whole point of buying it. He will, of course, replace the editorial staff so that its leftward tilt over the last 78 years can be corrected. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2007, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murdoch-to-acquire-wsj-will-anything-change/413871/4 "2007-07-31T21:39:02Z")
I was going to say, here’s to hoping Murdoch straightens out that notoriously liberal rag and brings in some fairness and balance. … I read too many newspapers as it is; it’d be nice to be able to totally ignore the WSJ. ---
**Author:** ![SpoilerVirgin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@SpoilerVirgin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpoilerVirgin)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2007, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murdoch-to-acquire-wsj-will-anything-change/413871/5 "2007-07-31T22:31:06Z")
Yes. Everything that matters will change. Murdoch has already says that he doesn’t like the “long stories” in the Journal. These are the stories that uncover wrongdoing, illuminate unfamiliar corners of the world, and help to right injustices. They are well-written and thoughtful, win Pulitzer prizes, and are frequently turned into good books. I don’t read the editorials in the Journal because I’m afraid of what might happen to my blood pressure, but I do read the investigative reporting, and it’s the best anywhere. There is not a doubt in my mind that over the course of the next few years under Murdoch’s ownership, that’s all going to go away. It makes me slightly nauseated to think about how the Journal will be destroyed, bit by bit until it’s just the Money section of USA Today plus a bunch of conservative editorials. I worry most about who will mind the store (meaning Wall Street and the business community) when the Journal is gone. Who is going to uncover the insider trading scandals, the options backdating scandals, and whatever new and dirtier mess is being cooked up at this moment? The world is going to be a much poorer, uglier, and more corrupt place once Murdoch gets his hands on the Journal. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2007, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murdoch-to-acquire-wsj-will-anything-change/413871/6 "2007-07-31T22:35:27Z")
I’ve never been a Journal reader, but I’ll throw in this much: I think Murdoch has agreed to some editorial “non-interference” measures in taking over the WSJ. I think he agreed to similar terms after buying other papers and then ignored them, so I think the changes will be visible, even if he tries to hide them at first. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2007, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murdoch-to-acquire-wsj-will-anything-change/413871/7 "2007-07-31T23:55:00Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Alterman goes on to suggest this change might be a good thing if it clarifies to the public the degree to which the corporate interests control the mainstream media already. [/QUOTE] Guys, I was a TV news producer for five years. Both stations I worked for were corporate-owned. One of them was in the top fifty television markets, in case someone tries the “you were too small for them to care” argument for the statement that follows. I was the only person responsible for five hours of news programming a week. Not once did I have a “corporate overlord” alter any of my content. Men in sunglasses looking over shoulders in newsrooms is a myth. I am absolutely positive that the corporate ownership was concerned about ratings, which translates to dollars. That mainifested itself in the General Manager/News Management of the station making talent and content decisions designed to keep (or increase) the audience. Ideological slant was avoided as it affects the credibility of the news product. If you annoy half your audience with slanted coverage, they will go to your competition. That’s TV news at the local level. On the national level and in newspapers, ideological bias is easier to see. But we only tend to notice the bias we disagree with. If they lean our way, we hardly notice because our world view is being confirmed. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2007, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murdoch-to-acquire-wsj-will-anything-change/413871/8 "2007-08-01T00:06:51Z")
[QUOTE=Evil One] Guys, I was a TV news producer for five years. Both stations I worked for were corporate-owned. One of them was in the top fifty television markets, in case someone tries the “you were too small for them to care” argument for the statement that follows. I was the only person responsible for five hours of news programming a week. Not once did I have a “corporate overlord” alter any of my content. Men in sunglasses looking over shoulders in newsrooms is a myth. \ That’s TV news at the local level. On the national level and in newspapers, ideological bias is easier to see. But we only tend to notice the bias we disagree with. If they lean our way, we hardly notice because our world view is being confirmed. [/QUOTE] Could you please re-state that post? I’m confused by the wording of your post. You make it sound, up top, as if your station only showed 5 hours of news programming a week, and you were deciding what to do with it. Then down bottom, you semi-imply that that was the _local_ news. (And the national news was piped in for you?) I’m not sure which you mean, or whether you mean something else entirely. So if you could clarify, I’d appreciate. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2007, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murdoch-to-acquire-wsj-will-anything-change/413871/9 "2007-08-01T01:01:03Z")
**Young Cutie Reveals: Capital Gains Tax Cuts Make Me _Hot!_** (Stolen from somebody, don’t remember who…) ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2007, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murdoch-to-acquire-wsj-will-anything-change/413871/10 "2007-08-01T05:49:11Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] **Young Cutie Reveals: Capital Gains Tax Cuts Make Me _Hot!_** (Stolen from somebody, don’t remember who…) [/QUOTE] Yeah, the engraving staff are suddenly going to find their jobs a _lot_ more interesting… ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2007, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/murdoch-to-acquire-wsj-will-anything-change/413871/11 "2007-08-01T14:50:38Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] Could you please re-state that post? I’m confused by the wording of your post. You make it sound, up top, as if your station only showed 5 hours of news programming a week, and you were deciding what to do with it. Then down bottom, you semi-imply that that was the _local_ news. (And the national news was piped in for you?) I’m not sure which you mean, or whether you mean something else entirely. So if you could clarify, I’d appreciate. Thanks. [/QUOTE] I was personally responsible for five hours of programming per week. A producer chooses the news stories that go into a newscast each day and in what order the stories will run. I produced three one hour shows, and four 30 minute shows each week for a local affiliate. The national news was piped in to us.