Already a member?
Sign in
Welcome! Wikis are websites that everyone can build together. It's easy!
Rupert Murdoch buys the Wall Street Journal
Laura Riggio
On July 31, 2007 Rupert Murdoch, head of News Corporation, bought Dow Jones & Company, publisher of the Wall Street Journal from the Bancroft family for $5 billion. News Corp. is the world’s leading publisher of English-language newspapers and controls other media outlets including cable, satellite television, book publishing, and film.
The media have been divided with the news of Murdoch's purchase because some critics such as Jack Shafer of Slate are worried that the media mogul will destroy the reputation of a newspaper long rooted in a tradition of good journalism. Others such as Scott Rosenberg, co-founder of Salon, see it as inevitable given our economic-system and some like Michael J. Clowes, contributing editor to Financial Week, think Murdoch will guarantee the Journal’s survival.
Many concerns stem from media consolidation, the idea that the majority of media outlets are controlled by a small number of big conglomerates. Even though media consolidation dates back to the days before Murdoch’s birth, it is a topic of recurring discussion with media critics like Noam Chomsky because it can change the quality of news.
According to Chomsky’s book, Manufacturing Consent, big media conglomerates are large, profit-seeking corporations, with an increased pressure from stockholders, directors, and bankers focusing on profitability.
If Chomsky is right, Murdoch, who has been criticized by media critics like Ben Bagdikian for having a habit of promoting his “deep-seated conservative politics,” will change the Journal to make more profits even though the Bancroft Family issued a statement in May saying that it is committed to “preserve and protect the editorial independence and integrity of the Wall Street Journal” as “we have been since 1902.”
To date, Murdoch has voiced his preference for “shorter, newsier front-page stories” and might replace CNBC with the new Fox Business Network as the network of choice.
But Rick Edmonds, business and journalism writer from Poynter Online, said in an interview said he doesn’t think Murdoch will make many changes. “I’d be surprised if he makes radical changes right away…with a paper with more than 2 million subscribers it’s a risky strategy to change something that works.” After all, he said,“I don’t think he ran the Times of London down hill.”
Media writer Jack Shafer wrote in a Slate article that he is skeptical of Murdoch making changes. He noted Harold Evans's book, Good Times, Bad Times which complains of Murdoch tampering with the editorial independence at Times of London. In an email interview, he also predicts that changes in staff might come about because “Murdoch tends to weed the gardens he buys.” Interestingly, he doesn’t think of Murdoch’s venture as corporate consolidation because technically he only owns one other US newspaper, the New York Post.
Other critics believe that Murdoch’s purchase was only a matter of time, like Chris Roush of Slate who even compared the mogul to Clarence W. Barron, the former family leader of the Wall Street Journal. Barron built his own media empire and promoted companies whose shares he owned, which sounds like Murdoch who has been accused by critics like Bagdikian of promoting self-interests.
But according to Scott Rosenberg’s blog Wordyard, “under our economic system—-the one that the journal has always championed—-owners are free to manage their properties. The Journal is a property first and foremost—-Murdoch paid good money for it. It is this cold reality that has so many journalists wringing their hands.”
Technically Murdoch can’t be blamed. Up until 1996 there was deregulation, but under the Clinton Administration, the FCC passed the Telecommunications Act that lifted restrictions on how many radio and television stations one corporation could own.
But what has the media so divided? According to Neal Gabler of Fox on “Fox News Watch” is that, “if you view the Journal as a public trust, then you criticize Rupert Murdoch’s takeover. And if you viewed it as a product, as much of the business journalists did, you praise it and say this was inevitable.
Some people like Michael J. Clowes say that the Journal has no where to go but up since its purchase by Murdoch. In a Financial Week article, he wrote that Murdoch’s ownership will guarantee the Journal’s survival and that Murdoch is misunderstood by the US Media because his competitors have shaped his image as a “low-brow buccaneer thrusting tabloid headlines on an innocent public crying out for better journalism."
Murdoch did tell the NY Times that he intended to increase political coverage and would like to see the Washington bureau expand.
Ultimately, Edmonds said only time will tell. Shafer added, "You'll see that most newspaper companies are diversified, that is own broadcast and Web businesses, too, and are aggressively pursuing those markets.’Media consolidation’ will end up preserving newspaper-style news values over time... Print has a lot of life left in it, I think.”
On July 31, 2007 Rupert Murdoch, head of News Corporation, bought Dow Jones & Company, publisher of the Wall Street Journal from the Bancroft family for $5 billion. News Corp. is the world’s leading publisher of English-language newspapers and controls other media outlets including cable, satellite television, book publishing, and film.
The media have been divided with the news of Murdoch's purchase because some critics such as Jack Shafer of Slate are worried that the media mogul will destroy the reputation of a newspaper long rooted in a tradition of good journalism. Others such as Scott Rosenberg, co-founder of Salon, see it as inevitable given our economic-system and some like Michael J. Clowes, contributing editor to Financial Week, think Murdoch will guarantee the Journal’s survival.
Many concerns stem from media consolidation, the idea that the majority of media outlets are controlled by a small number of big conglomerates. Even though media consolidation dates back to the days before Murdoch’s birth, it is a topic of recurring discussion with media critics like Noam Chomsky because it can change the quality of news.
According to Chomsky’s book, Manufacturing Consent, big media conglomerates are large, profit-seeking corporations, with an increased pressure from stockholders, directors, and bankers focusing on profitability.
If Chomsky is right, Murdoch, who has been criticized by media critics like Ben Bagdikian for having a habit of promoting his “deep-seated conservative politics,” will change the Journal to make more profits even though the Bancroft Family issued a statement in May saying that it is committed to “preserve and protect the editorial independence and integrity of the Wall Street Journal” as “we have been since 1902.”
To date, Murdoch has voiced his preference for “shorter, newsier front-page stories” and might replace CNBC with the new Fox Business Network as the network of choice.
But Rick Edmonds, business and journalism writer from Poynter Online, said in an interview said he doesn’t think Murdoch will make many changes. “I’d be surprised if he makes radical changes right away…with a paper with more than 2 million subscribers it’s a risky strategy to change something that works.” After all, he said,“I don’t think he ran the Times of London down hill.”
Media writer Jack Shafer wrote in a Slate article that he is skeptical of Murdoch making changes. He noted Harold Evans's book, Good Times, Bad Times which complains of Murdoch tampering with the editorial independence at Times of London. In an email interview, he also predicts that changes in staff might come about because “Murdoch tends to weed the gardens he buys.” Interestingly, he doesn’t think of Murdoch’s venture as corporate consolidation because technically he only owns one other US newspaper, the New York Post.
Other critics believe that Murdoch’s purchase was only a matter of time, like Chris Roush of Slate who even compared the mogul to Clarence W. Barron, the former family leader of the Wall Street Journal. Barron built his own media empire and promoted companies whose shares he owned, which sounds like Murdoch who has been accused by critics like Bagdikian of promoting self-interests.
But according to Scott Rosenberg’s blog Wordyard, “under our economic system—-the one that the journal has always championed—-owners are free to manage their properties. The Journal is a property first and foremost—-Murdoch paid good money for it. It is this cold reality that has so many journalists wringing their hands.”
Technically Murdoch can’t be blamed. Up until 1996 there was deregulation, but under the Clinton Administration, the FCC passed the Telecommunications Act that lifted restrictions on how many radio and television stations one corporation could own.
But what has the media so divided? According to Neal Gabler of Fox on “Fox News Watch” is that, “if you view the Journal as a public trust, then you criticize Rupert Murdoch’s takeover. And if you viewed it as a product, as much of the business journalists did, you praise it and say this was inevitable.
Some people like Michael J. Clowes say that the Journal has no where to go but up since its purchase by Murdoch. In a Financial Week article, he wrote that Murdoch’s ownership will guarantee the Journal’s survival and that Murdoch is misunderstood by the US Media because his competitors have shaped his image as a “low-brow buccaneer thrusting tabloid headlines on an innocent public crying out for better journalism."
Murdoch did tell the NY Times that he intended to increase political coverage and would like to see the Washington bureau expand.
Ultimately, Edmonds said only time will tell. Shafer added, "You'll see that most newspaper companies are diversified, that is own broadcast and Web businesses, too, and are aggressively pursuing those markets.’Media consolidation’ will end up preserving newspaper-style news values over time... Print has a lot of life left in it, I think.”
Sources
Bagdikian, Ben H., The New Media Monopoly Boston: Beacon Press, 2004.
Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, Manufacturing Consent New York: Pantheon Books, 1988.
Roberts, Johnnie L., "Forward into Battle"Newsweek 13 Aug. 2007, pg. 38
Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, Manufacturing Consent New York: Pantheon Books, 1988.
Roberts, Johnnie L., "Forward into Battle"Newsweek 13 Aug. 2007, pg. 38
Latest page update: made by lar294
, Oct 17 2007, 7:33 AM EDT
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by lar294
30 words deleted
view changes
- complete history)
Edited by lar294
30 words deleted
view changes
- complete history)
Keyword tags:
Murdoch
Rupert
wall street journal
WSJ
More Info: links to this page