Posted on 10/18/2007 4:14:41 PM PDT by kellynla
Rupert Murdoch, who is set to complete his $5 billion takeover of Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones, says he wants to move the newspaper beyond its financial core and target mainstream competitors such as the New York Times.
Speaking at a conference in San Francisco on Wednesday night, the News Corp. chief said: “We have a lot of plans and a lot of ideas that need to be refined. But I want to improve it in every way – in what it does now in finance to start with, but I also want to add more national and international news…
“I want to add major coverage of the arts, fashion and culture.”
When asked if he was aiming to kill the New York Times, he replied: “That would be nice.”
He also said he had progressive plans for the Fox Business Network, a TV channel for businesses that launched this week, The Guardian reported. He attacked competitors such as CNBC as “half dead.”
Good luck Murdoch, and nwo is the perfect time to commit the coup de grâce.
Murdoch for President!!!
Sounds like he'll end up killing the WSJ, not the Times.
The sooner the better. The Wall Street Journal would be the perfect replacement.
Hope you’re wrong. Some of the Fox stuff is lowest common denominator.
“asked if he was aiming to kill the New York Times”
Please, Mr. Murdoch, aim first at the kneecaps and work your way up. Take your time.
At some point the dems will realize that there’s no print equivalent of PBS and NPR. The NYT will be saved with a federal bailout as the nation’s “Public NewsPaper.” PNP?
>Sounds like he’ll end up killing the WSJ, not the Times.
Good point. I don’t see how you can kill the times by doing more of what they do.
IMO, if he can get control of those editorial pages, he can sink the times just with that, given some time.
Seeing the leftward drift of that part of the WSJ has driven a whole lot of customers away, myself included.
RIP, America's illustrious financial traditions.
The Wall Street Journal thrives as a newspaper specifically because it is THE source for news on business. None of the cable business channels can match it for coverage. The same isn’t true for other news papers. There are dozens of cable channels competing with sports, news, weather, shopping, arts, entertainment, and what have you. If he tries to make it into a clone of the New York Times he’s going to face the same competition the Times faces and it won’t be a question of his killing the Times, it’ll be a question of which dies first.
I sure would like it to kill the washington times first. it’s a little embarrassing that the only ‘complete’ conservative paper is owned by moonies.
I think you mean they'll be bailed out with Federal money owing to their position as the "News Paper of Record" (NPR), right?
“Seeing the leftward drift of that part of the WSJ has driven a whole lot of customers away, myself included.”
You, I and many other conservatives, who couldn’t tolerate Al Hunt’s bs and hatred of America posing as news and editorials in the WSJ caused many of us to cancel our subscriptions.
Hopefully, things are changing and the new WSJ will kneecap the the NY Slimes into total failure.
That’s true, but the reason I don’t read the WSJ (besides the fact I don’t read any newspaper), is that I get bored with the all business approach. The reason the Times is going down is because they refuse to stop cramming unadulterated bullsh!t down the readers’ throats. Just like with FNC all he has to do is present the same kind of stuff with a middle-of-the-road approach, and he’ll thrive. Like picking up money off the street, as they say.
OTOH, I’m not so sure newspaper is the direction to go these days, but he’s the mogul, I’m the peon.
Why kill the Washington Times? Better to kill the Washington Post. No matter who owns the Times, at least it is conservative. Are you bothered or embarrased because Communists and shameless traitors who hate all Christians own the New York Times and the Washington Post. Why be bothered that “Moonies” own the Washington Times. No one else has been able to put together a conservative newspaper with any circulation in the nation’s capital or anywhere else. Aim your bullets at the enemy first.
NPR, that’s better. I agree.
My worry is that you may be right.
Art, Fashion, Culture? Oh my...
Ok, Art, I think some really smokin hot babes, in color, creative posing would be a creative addition, and different than what the times does. Some people will subscribe just for this section. If you do it my way...
Culture? Fine, lets dedicate a section to taking ours back. Christmas, Easter to start wtih, maybe Halloween since that should be easy. Oh, the culture of giving away drivers licenses to illegals, and lighting up the empire state building as a gestrue to Muslims, yup let’s tackle that too.
Finally, fashion. How about ridiculing hip hop, and reminding people and businesses that dress professional is not only appropriate, but profitable. Fashion, yes, show me some creative ways to tie a tie knot, I’m really only good at one way, would like to know how you get that big fat impressive knot.
At least you aren’t adding sports, which is currently beyond all hope, other than maybe golf and tennis.
Ok, Murdoch, you gettin all this?
I don't. I'll grant that 90% of what they publish is not of any interest to me, but the 1% or so that is of major interest is invaluable. Last year I scooped 98+% of the speakers in my industry thanks to the WSJ. Turn it into a NYT-style public rag, even a conservative high-brow "USA Today" and it's of little to no value to me.
I nominate post #12 for stupidest post of the year award.
Finish the Old York Times
Pray for W and Our Troops
Wait until someone brings up that a significant piece of News Corp is owned by Saudis...
I wish Murdoch had bought the NYT itself. Can you imagine all the heads that would have exploded?
I agree with WS. A couple decades ago I signed on with a local "newspaper" created by the Moonies, for the duration of an election cycle. It was evident right from the outset that they and I did not see eye-to-eye on a whole lot of issues, but that our messages to the electorate coincided 100%.
The disparity between us remains, but these folks are still allies and a few are even personal friends in the current battles.
Chop them off, we all lose.
I get the WSJ daily and have for years, but I think the Investor’s Business Daily is better on the pure business side of things. But all in all I like the WSJ best.
you are entitled to your opinion but I don’t support cults.
how do you go around against the WP or NY Times? liberals will still want their paper.
WSJ should focus on what conservatives want, make it more like the W times, instead of trying to attract liberals with arts and fashion and turning it into a NY Times clone.
My guess is you never have actually read the Washington Times. It is a lively and interesting newspaper, and has a good weekly "national edition" to boot.
of course I have read it. That is why I want the WSJ to be more like it than the NY Times.
So you’d kill an ally because you don’t like the owner’s religion? If so, you’re stupid AND dangerous. I can see you doing a religion check to someone you are sharing a foxhole with.
““I want to add major coverage of the arts, fashion and culture.””
That’s not what I buy the WSJ for.
Sad, sounds like the WSJ will become fluff soon.
He should also stress that the paper has multiple uses. It can be folded into a stylish hat, for example.
I agree with killing off the Washington Times. Like Murdoch’s, the paper is only conservative because they know that it’s an underserved niche market. But it’s grossly incompetent and ameteurish. It’s a discredit to the ideals it purports to promote, and the fact that it aggressively seeks the label of “biased, right-wing rag” while failing to articulate conservativism makes it useless.
Naturally, I’d hate to kill off even incompetent allies, but I think the Washington Examiner is better suited to the task of filling the niche market.
>> That’s not what I buy the WSJ for. <<
Yeah, it’s a little like promising to include cool new video games with an IBM server. Or a graphics accelerator with Oracle.
it’s not a religion, it’s a cult, like islam.
I’m through with you, but I know folks who work at the Times, and so far you’re the only kook who’s talking about “killing” anything off, so the “islam” analogy is far more appropos to your one-man cult than to anyone else. Have fun.
Murdoch: Nice to Kill NY Times
Ari-freedom: Nice to Kill NY Times and Wash Times
It means to strongly compete, not actually killing anyone. got a problem with competition?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.