Posted on 08/04/2007 12:53:43 PM PDT by Vision
NEW YORK His Saturday business column for The New York Times (available online only via TimesSelect) mainly explores how the Bancroft family blew the deal with the News Corp. But Joseph Nocera closes it with a brief sit-down interview with new owner Rupert Murdoch at his headquarters in New York, just after the deal closes.
“The first road to freedom,” Murdoch explains, after (like Nocera) removing his tie and relaxing, “is viability.” This refers to the Wall Street Journal making healthy profits again, thereby allowing it to remain editorial independent. There is no "or else" uttered but it may be implicit.
Here's the money quote, or quip, a reference to the liberal New York Times' publisher: “I won’t meddle any more than Arthur Sulzberger does."
And: “I just think The Journal needs a little more urgency.”
Here is an excerpt. *
Was there ever a time he thought of pulling the offer? I asked. “Yeah,” he replied. “After they sent that letter. It was so insulting.” That was the letter in which the Bancrofts hoped to ensure editorial integrity by giving themselves the right to nominate News Corporation directors as well as a special editorial board for The Wall Street Journal. He swiftly rejected it, and eventually the Dow Jones board took over the negotiations that resulted in the creation of a small oversight board to protect the paper’s editorial independence.
Mr. Murdoch himself seemed unruffled by the need for such an agreement — or even by the accusations that he runs roughshod over the newspapers he owns. “I’m used to it,” he shrugged.....
My own view is that the chances of Mr. Murdoch wrecking The Journal are lower than you’d think; he needs a credible Journal for his own strategic purposes, and at 76, he surely must be thinking about his legacy. Besides, in The Journal’s cantankerous, provocative, deeply conservative editorial page, he already has the opinion page of his dreams, and one that packs enormous political clout.
Which is not to say he isn’t going to change The Journal. “We have lots of decisions to make,” he said. “How much should we really spend developing the Saturday paper? What should we do digitally? Should we remain subscription-based on the Web, or should we make it free? How much should we spend beefing up political and international coverage? I want it to be more competitive with The New York Times,” he added. “But that will be expensive.”
He suddenly picked up a Wall Street Journal that was lying in front of him, and I could almost see the ink flowing through his veins. “I would like to see real breaking news,” he said. “I like A-heds” — the famous less-than-serious feature that often runs down the middle of the front page, “but I don’t like a whole page of A-heds.”
He scanned the front page up and down. Sometimes his expression suggested deep approval of what he was seeing; but sometimes he frowned, suggesting that he had a different idea of what ought to run on the front page of this great newspaper he would soon own.
He should wade away the many liberals at the WSJ (starting with John Harwood) and take direct aim at the New York Times.
“Urgency” is a big corporate buzzword right now. It reminds me of “alignment,” “synergy” and the like.
Gee, this might require the Journal taking a less narrow view of issues which effect all Americans, not only the view of the Corporate Elite.
After all, the average working American market is much larger.
Leave the WSJ the way it is, Murdoch. The last thing we need is the WSJ turned into the sensationalistic drek that Fox News has become.
I doubt that.
Sure would be worth coming out of retirement to experience some of this 'urgency.' But, I have to urgently finish reading a few books by Kant and Hegel. I have a sense of urgency about this since the books have been sitting urgently unread by me for over some decades and urgently need to be read.
It’s just a shame that Mr. Murdoch didn’t seek to acquire the NYT and turn it around instead.
I know the existing NYT shareholder structure makes it a bit more of a challenge but isn’t that what this is all about?
It’s surely not about a rapid ROI.
““Urgency” is a big corporate buzzword right now. It reminds me of “alignment,” “synergy” and the like.””
Urgency=juicing short term profits
Alignment, synergy=ologopoly, monopoly, anti-competitive markets
The biggest disadvantage of the WSJ is carrying essential news that isn’t popular. Many of their readers don’t understand the bulk of the WSJ—not the fault of the WSJ, but that their readers never learned how. Even if that information is important to them.
And here is where their website may come in handy. They could post what amounts to online courses in investing, finance, and all sorts of other instruction so that their readers can get a lot more out of the paper.
They might even enlarge on it to have a library that would teach everything from high school and college economics, to investment and portfolio strategies, how to trade in stocks and bonds, mortgages and government fiscal policies, taxes, retirement accounts, how the markets function.
Hundreds of free, hour long streaming or downloadable videos would not only be a huge draw to their website, but would create a strong readership base. The expense of setting up such a system would be quite small compared to the benefits.
Highly entertaining, multimedia presentations from “The Business College of the Wall Street Journal” could even be used in real high school and college classrooms across the US to teach all of those complex subjects to the next generation of investors.
On top of everything else, beyond a certain point for advanced studies from top experts, the WSJ could charge a fee to stream or download the instruction. Say a top economist or other such expert could step into the WSJ studio, and with the help of their multimedia people could present a clear and precise presentation to premium users.
The bottom line would be a lot of readers not only reading the WSJ from cover to cover, but expanding their participation in investment and markets far beyond where they ever dreamed they would.
I don’t believe you can buy the NY Times without Sulzberger approval. And look at all the crap they did here to Murdoch on the WSJ deal. They’re pure evil.
Judging by who wrote the piece you posted (the "Editor and Publisher" staff), "wrecking" means "turning further to the right." In that sense they would be correct, because, contrary to much MSM stuff going back to the Clinton era, Murdoch is not a conservative. He supported Her Royal Thighness' Senate campaign last year and has contributed to Dem presidential candidates in this cycle. He has gotten himself involved with something called the "Clinton Global Initiative" and has put his NY Post on a program to combat global warming.
What seems even more ominous down the road is the left political slant of Murdoch's son, a likely heir.
Ping!
Who likes ultrawealthy people who are hedgers? There would be a lot more to admire about him if he were principled and "walked the walk."
...strongly dislikes the Sulzbergers.
Great. Not many people like them. I know that he strongly dislikes Ted Turner, too. Great. But that doesn't make RM a positive force for the conservative movement in the US.
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.