Comments on: Dow Jones Goes Down Under

By: domajot

domajot — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 01:37:41 +0000

I don’t think the major concern is whether the editorial pages will be biased in favor of the ‘Right’, since that’s already the case. The bigger concern is how much Murdoch’s stamp will affect the news pages and the paper as a whole.

In all his other ventures, Murdoch has shown a single minded drive to sell, sell, sell the product without the least care for its quality. A number of businessmen (on Charlie Rose, for example) have expressed the observation that Murdoch can’t resist managing and directing every aspect of his properties. That’s what’s scary.
What is even scarier is that he always gets his way.

By: kritter

kritter — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 20:00:11 +0000

It turned out not to be true, CS- or at least it wasn’t the reason he was ousted.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 19:30:52 +0000

It helped perpetuate the myth that the Euros at the Bank wanted him out because he was trying to end corruption.

Yeah, ’cause that couldn’t possibly be true.

And of course, whenever someone of questionable scruples posts an op-Ed in NYT or some other “respected” paper, we get reminded that we shouldn’t criticize because Op-Eds don’t reflect the opinions of the editorial staff. I guess the same standard doesn’t apply to the WSJ though.

By: kritter

kritter — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 10:40:46 +0000

‘

no one at the WSJ trying to correct even the most blatant lies and made up â€˜factsâ€™that were published in that section. At least this part of the journal canâ€™t get worse under Murdoch’

Actually, I had noticed this myself, and was shocked by it. Most recently that occurred when the WSJ presented Wolfowitz’s side of the WB controversy as fact in one of their editorials. It helped perpetuate the myth that the Euros at the Bank wanted him out because he was trying to end corruption. Not quite the balanced view. But, anyway, I agree with Gray.

By: Gray

Gray — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:37:39 +0000

Oh, and somehow this is a perfect example that every bad deed gets its reward: The Bancrofts never showed any scruples when the WSJ’s columns promoted a predator-style capitalism. Now they fell victim to Tyrannosaurus Rex Murdoch. Deserves them well.

By: Gray

Gray — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:32:53 +0000

“But give them credit for a struggle to save their souls.”
Huh? I can’t understand what all this fuzz is about. The Bancrofts lost their soul long ago when they allowed the opinion pages of their ‘respected’ paper to become a hotpot of far right wing nuts, shameless lobbyists, and supporters of an extreme capitalism, with no one at the WSJ trying to correct even the most blatant lies and made up ‘facts’that were published in that section. At least this part of the journal can’t get worse under Murdoch’s ownership.

By: kritter

kritter — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 03:13:29 +0000

The fourth estate is our only means of understanding what’s going on in government. It is vitally important to our democracy that the media be vibrant and independent- speaking out when no one else will about executive excesses and uberinfluence of corporate lobbyists on Congress and the presidency. I didn’t agree with the WSJ’s editorial page, but at least they were owned independently.

By: domajot

domajot — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 02:24:52 +0000

“I worry more about the loss of diversity through consolidation,”

ME TOO.

Plus, consolidation usually means job loss, which means less in-depth coverate.

By: Pete Abel

Pete Abel — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 22:14:41 +0000

Wow. I had missed that story. Agree entirely with your conclusion. What I fear is that the conglomerate that replaces Murdoch’s will be even larger, more monolithic than his. I worry about Murdoch’s politics influencing the pages; I worry more about the loss of diversity through consolidation, regardless of the politics of the consolidators.