Let's Make A Deal: Murdoch Wins Again »
Posted by: JamesMarcus 1 year agoAfter a series of cliffhanging negotiations, it appears that Rupert Murdoch has finally bagged his biggest prize yet. According to this dispatch, he has won control of Dow Jones & Company, including the jewel in the corporate crown, "The Wall Street Journal." Is this good news or bad news? As usual, it depends on who you ask.
Read Full Story at newsquake.netscape.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 66
-
0%
marlenebomer1 year ago
Once again, a respected member of the media sells out to a man whose journalistic experience is printing sleazy tabloids and a news channel disguising itself as a bootlicker for the GOP.
This country's media has been on a downward slide for decades, and seems to slide even further into the sewer.
Look for the Wall Street Journal to start running columns on the latest Hollywood gossip, a nude on page six, and a permanent loss of objectivity!
Reply-
-
0%
Aidenag1 year ago
If he holds even remotely as much of the Media as Murdoch does, most definitely.. Sick and tired of diversity in the media being trampled all over by people like Rupert Murdoch.. Half the reason so many people hate him has nothing to do with his political views, its the fact he holds such a large chunk of the airwaves and print news.
Creates major conflicts of interest. Notice how Foxnews hasnt been saying much about the China food safety scandal compared to other networks? wonder why? Its because Murdoch has half his fortune invested in China and refuses to shed light on what goes on in the country. And the more he buys, the more of a problem this becomes because everything will effect his bottom line. 20 years from now when his son owns the entire corporation, i dont even want to imagine how sanatized the news will be.
Reply
-
-
0%
allasam1 year ago
Hey, don't forget about Paris Hilton, she has lots of money so it is relevant!
Reply
-
-
0%
DebraJMSmith1 year ago
Murdoch is bad news. The man has so many conservatives tricked into believing he is a great man, when he is anything but.
He is doing nothing more than being a control hog. He seeks to control both sides of issues. I swear the man has a chess board set up and calls one side "Liberals" and the other side "Conservatives". I can see him now, bent down over the chess board with his elbows on his knees, rubbing his hands together, laughing a wicked laugh as to what his next move will be. The man has no foundation at all. He is void of any depth.
Yes, it is his right to own what he can purchase. I just hope that people wise up to the fact that the man gets sucked up to because people want what he can give them.
Debra...
"A little too conservative for some conservatives to handle."
Reply-
0%
blowback1 year ago
I agree. Murdoch is a control hog, and that's putting it politely.
Those close to him say he is addicted to the deal.
This is just part of his greater addiction to power.
He has no political loyalties.
His loyalties are only to those who serve his interests.
And then, only for the term his interests are served.
Already his loyalties are shifting and moving away from Bush and towards Clinton.
His true darkness is not the acquisition of greater control over the media.
But the power it affords him to exercise greater control over governments everywhere.
He can make or break politicians and governments with the spin that once had the integrity
of what was previously called journalism.
He has become the supreme manipulator of proportions beyond even those of Orson Welles'
"Citizen Kane".
Reply -
0%
schmirt1 year ago
NEVER believed he was a great man. His record in media interests has mostly been self-serving. Primarily business and not ideology that drives him... a libertarian morelike. A lot of what he provides is garbage or down right anti-conservative if one judges his brand overall. However, because of Fox News, Murdock became the great right wing 'Satan'to many.
You are right about him. The critics just dont get it--its about what the people want. Murdock exploits it. Sometimes something good comes of it, sometimes crap. If the trends turn left, he will follow.
I see no virtue in him, but there is little in business anyway. The critics make him a boogyman because they are top-down,corporate conspiracy and 'state is the solution' oriented in thinking (leftist thinking?). At least you seem to appreciate the market/cultural aspects, Debra.
Is Murdock bad for the WSJ? Is he a threat to journalism or truth even? Hardly, because they are in the crapper already.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
DebraJMSmith1 year ago
I wonder if he realizes that he will be naked before God some day if he does not truly call on Jesus in truth. I mean, I wonder if he has ever thought about what little time he has left with his money. ...djms
Reply
-
-
0%
Punchkin1 year ago
So, where are people going to go to get their financial info now?? Clearly, Wall Street is now in line for a transfusion...
Reply -
-
-
0%
KicBoxStallion1 year ago
and who says 'we won't be fooled again?!'
-
from tricky dick,
to contra games of reagan nomics,
to georgie wacko bush and boss chain-gang dick!
-
again and again and again..
-
GOP = game on people
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Goppy1 year ago
Yaeah!!
We Christian Conservatives are King of the World!!!!
We run everything!!
We run ABC, CBS, NBC!! We even bought out that horrible liberal Ted Turner, and now we run CNN!!
We own most newspapers. We own 90% of Talk Radio!! Plus all them religious stations we owns.
It shouldnt be now surprise how we got all them libbies on the run. We git all our presdients elected. We gits most of our Congressmen elected. And we rule the Supreme Court!!
You know why that is right?
Right!!
We controls all the information youall gits on a daily baisis!!
Praise the Lord and thank God for GW!!! The bestest presdient this centruy has knowed!!
Reply-
-
0%
Goppy1 year ago
It is whut eva we Christian Conservatives calls it marky!
Its called the power of the bully pulpit!
When you become a fundamentalist Christian Republican like me - and you merge absolute certainty that you is right in everthing - with the supreme arrogance of our military wing of the Conservatives - you too can call a spade a club - and its a club dag nabbit! And ifn you dont accept that the spade is a club, weall will beat you about the haid.
Our Arrogance is only matched by our Power.
Amen.
Reply
-
-
0%
Justice4All1 year ago
Murdoch is not Christian.....
He like Christians, but it is not his first religion.
And he likes America, but it is not his favorite country.
Reply
-
-
0%
yadayadayada1 year ago
Better than stealing by force, better than a war, much better than being an illegal alien, better than a terrorist...using capitalism and citizenship to buy America! Claimed without firing a shot. Those on the right should be so proud. It is just so Amuuurican but yet Australian. Osama Bin Hidin' and Al Kinda should have just saved their pennies, became "good Allah fearing amurican citizens" and simply bought the place out for a tidy return on investment. Now that my friends is true conservatism and the "amurican way". Don't y'all just feel real gidy??? Maybe next Murdoch could buy up NASCAR!
Reply-
-
0%
schmirt1 year ago
So myopic. The name of the game is investment. Every modern country in the world is competing for investment. The key to any poor country to get out of poverty is investment. We have been and still are net gainers for a long time and are hated for it.
We went through this kind of hysteria in the '80's for cryin' out loud. The Japanese bought businesses and property. Sometimes we lost jobs or some tax revenue--but in the long run we benefited because that is the only they benefited.
We have a love-hate relationship for corporations here. When we want jobs and revenue, we give tax breaks and market advantages. When they make money, we want to tax em', restrict them, and beat them on the head. When this is out of balance, the corps look around. Sometimes I lament good jobs lost when corps move. Sometimes they are crappy jobs and good riddance.(It still may benefit our retirement funds.)
The concern over the Murdock-WSJ deal is over control of news. I dont see a big change.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Mr-opinion1 year ago
If the circulation of the Journal hadn't already slowed enough this could be a disaster, as is, with the jurnal going most likely out it will have little impacts, and regarding the times, well the papers wern't as pure (not even the journal) as the right makes out to be. Lets face it readers don't read and junk sels to those that do, and stock reports come out the same no matter who reports them. numbers are numbers.
Reply -
-
0%
ningyo1 year ago
its one thing to own these media outlets..the content is still determined largely by the editors and writers--all very left wing and liberal--its like saying the owner of the ny yankees can tell his players what to do on saturday night--all these news staffers are the product of VERY left leaning journalism schools and proffessors..and ..consciously or not..they insert their bias in every story they look at..you cant say that 95% of reporters vote democrat but write evenly about both sides--its just not realistic
Reply-
0%
marlenebomer1 year ago
Um, sorry to burst your theory sweetcakes, but look at what happened to the Times of London after Murdock got his slimy hands on the paper: he replaced all the real journalists and began to skew the writing towards the rabid conservative.
Murdock swore NewsCorp wouldn't interfere with the content, but that promise was only as good when the ink was wet. He's made the same promise to the family who owned the WSJ, but that will be about as valid as Bush's two "elections".
As with anything in business today... money talks and loyalty walks.
Reply
-
-
HanymanComment removed: User banned.
-
0%
winstonsmithredux1 year ago
At least he has to pay more for the WSJ than he did the White House and the Congress. I'll bet the FCC feels cheated out of their share.
Reply -
0%
lovemylibs1 year ago
This story has a misleading headline, in more ways than one. I first clicked on this story expecting to see something about a Monty Hall revival. Then, when I read it more closely, I realized it was about Murdoch buying the WSJ. What I can't understand is why this headline says "Murdoch wins"? Everyone knows that the WSJ isn't worth the paper it's written on. Sure, it used to be, when all they ran were stories about how good the economy was when we had Democratic Presidents and how bad the economy was when we were led by Republicans. But for the last 5 years or so this dang rag stopped being as yellow dog as we liberal media mavens would like them to be. They even had the gumption to put conservative ideas on their editorial page. After they did that, I stopped reading it. If a paper can't mislead with a domination of bias, then what good is it anyway? Damn the Bancrofts twice - once for printing righty op-eds and once for selling out to satan. Murdoch really loses, YAY!
Reply -
-
0%
schmirt1 year ago
Are the posters here now lamenting the 'loss' of the most prominent U.S. newspaper that has a conservative, pro-market, pro-capitalist editorial bias?(ok. wacko-rightwing for some of you). Ironic.
Newspapers are dying! 'Satan' just bought a dinosaur! The Russel Baker quote should re-assure the Murdock hysterians "...when the sign in the shop window says "Everything is for sale", it is often followed by a "Going out of business sign". If the WSJ is lost, then there will be no major conservative paper to contrast the influence of liberal editorial of the other major papers (NY Times, Wash. Post, LA Times, USA Today etc.)
The posters here should be celebrating! Along with Academia, Journalists, Hollywood, internet, tv networks, and the so-called 'Fairness doctrine', the left may just attain the absolute contol of all the opinion shaping content they desire! From cradle to grave! Why the long faces?
Reply-
0%
schmirt1 year ago
Just think of the golden oportunity. If Murdock destroys the most right wing paper, he presumably will have destroyed Fox news credibility by then. The 'Fairness doctrine' may suceed in crippling the economic viability of talk radio. By the next election, we can pass laws to label the remaining conservative voices as hate speech because they will not have a lobby. The government can take control and allocate broadcast rights to to all the 'correct thinking', 'progressive' voices that have been denied so long. Might as well knockout the TV Evangilists because of seperation of church and state. Think of it! No more Family values, no more right and wrong!
Then we can finally do something about the imbalance of wealth by rolling back the over application of property rights to serve the common good. We can finally choke and dismember the geese that lay the golden eggs and distribute them among the needy. We can set up health care in the model of Cuban utopia. Just think of the paradise
Reply-
0%
schmirt1 year ago
...health care dispensed with the care and efficiency of the U.S Postal service and the local Driver and Motor Vehicles Department! It will be the best because all the doctors and specialists that have fled thier countries public health care systems to come here will not have anywhere to go! All under the ever viligant, non-partisian, uninfluenced of congresssional oversite!
The private sector will screw us no more!! All news broadcasts will be of public service. Public health workers, public bankers, public sit-coms, public sportsteams, public BARS!!,and the public politicians union (for the basic right to job security)! If a party does not support the 'public' society, they do not support the public and it will not be of public sevice to broadcast their views. The party line thats supports the public will get the public service.
No more unfairness. Criminals get probation, we all get probation. No more rich, no more poor, and no reason to achieve more. No news is good news!
Reply
-
-
-
0%
SlapALib1 year ago
FOX NEWS ALERT!!!
Wall Street was just changed to O'Reilly Street, so the paper is now called "The O'Reilly Street Journal".
Reply -
0%
SlapALib1 year ago
That picture of Murdoch makes Stephen Hawking look like a male model. Sheesh.
Reply -
0%
NoWayMan1 year ago
Murdoch's FoxNews trades in hit pieces slanted to the right disguised as real news.
So now the WSJ will be filled with commercials for "murdoch-friendly" companies disguised as real stories about business news.
expect to get the info they want you to get rather than the info you need in order to make solid decisions.
everyone I know who gets the WSJ has already cancelled their subscription.
Reply -
-
0%
schmirt1 year ago
Typical. Its alway somebody elses doing aint it?
Republicans win an election, the scum had it fixed.
Democrats win the congress in 2006 (many races much closer than the 2000 election) and its the will of the people. Go figure.
I read the hand wringing within the republican party over the last election, some disagreeing with each other over policy and direction. Many seem to be trying to understand what the people said when they spoke by vote in 2006.
When the Democrats lose...the election is fixed...cry for a do over...blame some media mogul...hell, might as well blame global warming.
Lose a job...blame the government. Smoking for your entire adult life and get lung cancer? Blame the CEO of RJ Reynolds, no matter how many times your doctor waved a finger in your face telling you its bad for you. Gas costs too much? Might as well role the window down of your car and scream at the president and then join the pack on the highway for your 20 mile commute home.
Reply-
0%
schmirt1 year ago
I guess it would be easier to follow the party the wants to blame the system for our plite and get the public sector to take care of us. Just have to give up a little freedom and tax money.
Back to the WSJ. I dont care for Murdock and I am suspicious of his ownership. But I find it dillusional to believe he is going the break something in journalism with the assumption that we are already well served by a media that has no agenda already.
Much of the major media is already owned by corporations. Who cares? They are shrinking and dying in the explosion of new media anyway. For those who lament the loss of editorial independence of a family owned newspaper, get real. Who believes the family owners dont have an agenda? We dont want these rich to make $ anyway!
If anyone wants to cancel their subscription to the WSJ, fine, because thats within your power. My guess is most who directed their rage at Rupert Murdock are hostile to the right leaning editorial of the WSJ anyway.
Reply
-
-
-
catstevensComment removed: User banned.
-
Submitted By:
JamesMarcus
James Marcus is a writer, translator, critic, and editor. He is the author of Amazonia: Five Years at the Epicenter of the Dot-Com Juggernaut and ...
Also submitted:
- 5.0 - Propeller Week In Review: August 8, 2008
- 1.0 - Chris Matthews Brings on the Noise
- 5.8 - Bush Bashing and the Great Marble Round-Up
- 3.0 - "A Sacred Trust": Five Veterans Talk About Obama
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Also Propping This Article
Alexia
dirtyfratboy
TimALoftis
coreyspring
capn_caveman
tynxy
RoyWagner- Helixbuilder
ciera-marie- BuyRealEstate
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?
