The Ever Expanding Murdoch Empire

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
Wall Street Journal Weighs Life Under Murdoch

Rupert Murdoch has spent years thinking about what he would do with The Wall Street Journal if he could just get his hands on it. Based on his business history, he often gets what he wants.

But Mr. Murdoch, the media baron who runs the News Corporation, may need a little more of his trademark patience to win The Journal’s parent company, Dow Jones & Company.

Yesterday, the company’s board announced that it was taking no action on Mr. Murdoch’s surprise $5 billion bid because members of the controlling Bancroft family holding 52 percent of the company’s votes oppose it.

Mr. Murdoch’s determination to buy Dow Jones is not expected to be deflected by the news, according to an adviser who did not want to be identified because he was not authorized to speak for Mr. Murdoch. The News Corporation declined to comment.

The question for Bancroft family members, journalists and competitors would be, if he eventually prevails: What sort of owner would Mr. Murdoch be for the world’s leading financial newspaper? A look at the five decades he has spent buying, running and selling newspapers suggests two things.

First, Mr. Murdoch does not mind losing money in the short term to satisfy his competitive goals. And despite overseeing a globe-spanning media conglomerate worth $67 billion, he still considers himself foremost a newspaperman and has an editor’s eye for what goes into print.

In some cases over the years, Mr. Murdoch was known for calling in tips or tinkering with headlines, particularly at the tabloid newspapers he has owned. In 2004, Mr. Murdoch was even said by one New York Post employee to be the source for The Post’s erroneous headline “Dem Picks Gephardt as VP Candidate,” although The Post’s editor denied that was the case.

Mr. Murdoch’s notoriety as the force behind the politically barbed Fox News Channel, the racy Sun in London and the populist Post precedes him and is part of the reason for the opposition against him among the Bancroft family and some Journal employees.

Perhaps to soften that image, Mr. Murdoch has portrayed himself in letters to the Bancroft family as a fellow owner of a family business who would be a steward for the newspaper and maintain its independence.

“We have a history of long stewardship of great newspapers,” Mr. Murdoch wrote in a letter to the family last week, referring specifically to The Times of London, The Sunday Times and The Australian. “I always see my role as supporting the editors and publishers of these newspapers. We think we would be the ideal partner to grow and expand your company, as well as protect such a vital public trust.”

Several current and former associates said that despite some high-profile episodes over the years, Mr. Murdoch today does take a less active role in day-to-day coverage, particularly of the higher-end newspapers he owns.

Robert Thomson, the editor of The Times of London since 2002, said that Mr. Murdoch had never called him to criticize or order up a particular story.

“We have never talked about that day’s paper or the next day’s paper,” he said, ”never discussed a story in any way that I would interpret as being an attempt to exercise influence over news coverage.”

Mr. Murdoch said in an interview last week that he did not dictate, for example, which candidates each newspaper should endorse in a political campaign. In the last British election, for example, The Times supported the re-election of Tony Blair of the Labor Party, while The Sunday Times backed his Conservative rival.

Mr. Thomson said that The Times had a strict separation between news and commentary — which is something that The Wall Street Journal and most United States newspapers hold sacrosanct, but not all of Mr. Murdoch’s papers, particularly his tabloids, have adhered to.

And certainly some of Mr. Murdoch’s earlier clashes with editors are the stuff of lore. After the Murdoch purchase of The Times in 1981, Harold Evans, then the paper’s editor, felt that Mr. Murdoch pressured him toward showing more favor toward Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the newspaper.

In his memoir, “Good Times, Bad Times,” Mr. Evans wrote that Mr. Murdoch did not suggest specific editorial views. Rather, he made his feelings known “by jabbing a finger at headlines which he thought could have been more supportive of Mrs. Thatcher.”

In 1983, Mr. Murdoch caused a stir when he personally secured the publishing rights to what were said to be Hitler’s diaries, only to learn subsequently that they were fakes after publishing them in The Sunday Times.

“I think he’s learned quite a lot of lessons from The Times and The Sunday Times,” said Andrew F. Neil, a former editor of the latter paper for Mr. Murdoch, who is now a television interviewer and magazine executive in Britain. “He gives his quality newspaper editors a freer hand,” Mr. Neil said. “He’s much more hands-on with his tabloids. If you want to know what Rupert’s thinking, read The Post.”.................

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/business/media/03murdoch.html




How long until he owns everything?
 

Diuretic

Permanently confused
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
12,653
Reaction score
1,410
Points
48
Location
South Australia est 1836
Don't under-estimate him, he's a driven man. He began the media empire that is now News Ltd right here in my home city. He turned a small circulation, tabloid afternoon newspaper into the media empire it is today. It was only a year or so ago that he moved News Ltd to Delaware. Prior to that he would dutifully fly back here from the States to run the annual general meeting of News Ltd. I have to say I don't like his acquisitiveness, it's dangerous for democracy but as far as his drive and business intelligence is concerned, he's right up there.

He won't stop until he's carked it and as long as he's alive he will keep trying to get everything.
 

actsnoblemartin

I love Andrea & April
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
4,039
Reaction score
412
Points
98
Location
La Mesa, CA
Dont question me or I will buy you

Sincerely

Rupert Murdoch :badgrin:

Wall Street Journal Weighs Life Under Murdoch

Rupert Murdoch has spent years thinking about what he would do with The Wall Street Journal if he could just get his hands on it. Based on his business history, he often gets what he wants.

But Mr. Murdoch, the media baron who runs the News Corporation, may need a little more of his trademark patience to win The Journal’s parent company, Dow Jones & Company.

Yesterday, the company’s board announced that it was taking no action on Mr. Murdoch’s surprise $5 billion bid because members of the controlling Bancroft family holding 52 percent of the company’s votes oppose it.

Mr. Murdoch’s determination to buy Dow Jones is not expected to be deflected by the news, according to an adviser who did not want to be identified because he was not authorized to speak for Mr. Murdoch. The News Corporation declined to comment.

The question for Bancroft family members, journalists and competitors would be, if he eventually prevails: What sort of owner would Mr. Murdoch be for the world’s leading financial newspaper? A look at the five decades he has spent buying, running and selling newspapers suggests two things.

First, Mr. Murdoch does not mind losing money in the short term to satisfy his competitive goals. And despite overseeing a globe-spanning media conglomerate worth $67 billion, he still considers himself foremost a newspaperman and has an editor’s eye for what goes into print.

In some cases over the years, Mr. Murdoch was known for calling in tips or tinkering with headlines, particularly at the tabloid newspapers he has owned. In 2004, Mr. Murdoch was even said by one New York Post employee to be the source for The Post’s erroneous headline “Dem Picks Gephardt as VP Candidate,” although The Post’s editor denied that was the case.

Mr. Murdoch’s notoriety as the force behind the politically barbed Fox News Channel, the racy Sun in London and the populist Post precedes him and is part of the reason for the opposition against him among the Bancroft family and some Journal employees.

Perhaps to soften that image, Mr. Murdoch has portrayed himself in letters to the Bancroft family as a fellow owner of a family business who would be a steward for the newspaper and maintain its independence.

“We have a history of long stewardship of great newspapers,” Mr. Murdoch wrote in a letter to the family last week, referring specifically to The Times of London, The Sunday Times and The Australian. “I always see my role as supporting the editors and publishers of these newspapers. We think we would be the ideal partner to grow and expand your company, as well as protect such a vital public trust.”

Several current and former associates said that despite some high-profile episodes over the years, Mr. Murdoch today does take a less active role in day-to-day coverage, particularly of the higher-end newspapers he owns.

Robert Thomson, the editor of The Times of London since 2002, said that Mr. Murdoch had never called him to criticize or order up a particular story.

“We have never talked about that day’s paper or the next day’s paper,” he said, ”never discussed a story in any way that I would interpret as being an attempt to exercise influence over news coverage.”

Mr. Murdoch said in an interview last week that he did not dictate, for example, which candidates each newspaper should endorse in a political campaign. In the last British election, for example, The Times supported the re-election of Tony Blair of the Labor Party, while The Sunday Times backed his Conservative rival.

Mr. Thomson said that The Times had a strict separation between news and commentary — which is something that The Wall Street Journal and most United States newspapers hold sacrosanct, but not all of Mr. Murdoch’s papers, particularly his tabloids, have adhered to.

And certainly some of Mr. Murdoch’s earlier clashes with editors are the stuff of lore. After the Murdoch purchase of The Times in 1981, Harold Evans, then the paper’s editor, felt that Mr. Murdoch pressured him toward showing more favor toward Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the newspaper.

In his memoir, “Good Times, Bad Times,” Mr. Evans wrote that Mr. Murdoch did not suggest specific editorial views. Rather, he made his feelings known “by jabbing a finger at headlines which he thought could have been more supportive of Mrs. Thatcher.”

In 1983, Mr. Murdoch caused a stir when he personally secured the publishing rights to what were said to be Hitler’s diaries, only to learn subsequently that they were fakes after publishing them in The Sunday Times.

“I think he’s learned quite a lot of lessons from The Times and The Sunday Times,” said Andrew F. Neil, a former editor of the latter paper for Mr. Murdoch, who is now a television interviewer and magazine executive in Britain. “He gives his quality newspaper editors a freer hand,” Mr. Neil said. “He’s much more hands-on with his tabloids. If you want to know what Rupert’s thinking, read The Post.”.................

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/business/media/03murdoch.html




How long until he owns everything?
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
More power to him if he can do it.
 

Diuretic

Permanently confused
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
12,653
Reaction score
1,410
Points
48
Location
South Australia est 1836
More power to him if he can do it.
He'll buy as much as he can. I have yet to work out if it's about money or if it's simply about power and the ability to control all media. I sometimes think Murdoch would buy the whole internet if he could :badgrin:

But he's no idiot, no way in the world, he's a very clever man, very clever. He was an early identifier of the potential power of the internet and chided our government in Australia for being slow in that realisation.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
He'll buy as much as he can. I have yet to work out if it's about money or if it's simply about power and the ability to control all media. I sometimes think Murdoch would buy the whole internet if he could :badgrin:

But he's no idiot, no way in the world, he's a very clever man, very clever. He was an early identifier of the potential power of the internet and chided our government in Australia for being slow in that realisation.
And if he can through his skills and resources do so, more power to him. We should all try to be the best we can at what we do.
 

Diuretic

Permanently confused
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
12,653
Reaction score
1,410
Points
48
Location
South Australia est 1836
And if he can through his skills and resources do so, more power to him. We should all try to be the best we can at what we do.
We should live up to our potential, yes, definitely. But is it good for society to have too much ownership of media concentrated in the one proprietor?

Anyway I just listened to a BBC World Service Business Review discussion on this very topic, it's here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/world_business_review.shtml - and worth a listen if you have an interest in this specific issue.
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
So what is Murdoch buys the WSJ

The libs will still have ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, TBS, NPR, CNN, BBC, HBO, HSN, MTV, VH1, Showtime, Gore TV, Reuters, The Associated Press, Time Magazine, Newsweek, The New Republic, the Nation, The New Yorker, the Harvard Perspective, High Times, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Seattle Times, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Seattle Weekly, The Boston Globe, The Village Voice, The San Francisco Chronicle, The San Francisco Examiner, USA Today, The Washington Post, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Arizona Daily Star, The Anniston Star , The Decatur Daily, Montgomery Advertiser, The Tuscaloosa News, Anchorage Daily News Arkansas Time, Tuscon Daily Star, The Alameda Times-Star, Contra Costa Times, The Los Angeles Daily News, The Fresno Bee, Marin Independent Journal, Merced Sun-Star, The Modesto Bee, The Monterey County Herald, The Oakland Tribune, La Opinion, The Santa Rose Press Democrat, The Sacramento Bee, San Jose Mercury News, San Mateo County Times, Santa Cruz Sentinel, The Valejo Times-Herald, The Eureka Times Standard, The Ventura County Star, Aspen Daily News, The Boulder Daily Camera, Durango Herald, Fort Collins Coloradoan, Greeley Daily Tribune, The Stamford Advocate, The Wilmington News Journal, Bradenton Herald, Daytona Beach News-Journal, Florida Today, The Gainesville Sun, The Miami Herald, Orlando Sentinel, The Palm Beach Post, St Petersburg Times, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Treasure Coast News/Press-Tribune, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Macon Telegraph, The Honolulu Advertiser, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Bonner County Daily Bee, The Idaho Statesman, Chicago Defender, Chicago Sun-Times, Edwardsville Intelligencer,Rockford Register, Lafayatte Journal and Courier, The Des Moines Register, Iowa City Press-Citizen, Quad City Times, The Storm Lake Tribune, The Hutchinson News, Lexington Herald-Leader, The Louisville Courier-Journal, Teen Lexington Herald-Leader, Owensboro Messenger-Inquirer, The Shreveport Times, Bangor Daily News. the Kennebec Journal, Portland Press Herald, The Baltimore Sun, The Berkshire Eagle, The Framingham MetroWest Daily News, Milford Daily News. The Springfield Republican, The New Bedford Standard-Times, the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, The Argus-Press, The Bay City Times, The Battle Creek Enquirer, the Detroit Free Press, The Flint Journal, the Lansing State Journal, Livingston County Daily Press & Argus, The Muskegon Chronicle, Parasites Weekly, Petoskey News-Review, The Saginaw News, the Port Huron Times Herald, Traverse City Record-Eagle, Duluth News Tribune, The Mankato Free Press, St. Cloud Times, the Columbia Daily Tribune, The Kansas City Star, St. Louis American, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Springfield News-Leader, Billings Gazette, Las Vegas Mercury, the Las Vegas Sun, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the Nevada Appeal, the Reno Gazette-Journal, the Concord Monitor, The Keene Sentinel, the Portsmouth Herald, The Nashua Telegraph, the Lebanon-Hanover Valley News, The Bergen Record, the Burlington County Times, the Bridgewater Courier News, the Camden Courier-Post, The Vineland Daily Journal, the Parsippany Daily Record, The Jersey Journal, The Gloucester County Times, The Hackensack Record, the Newark Star-Ledger The Trenton Times, the Albuquerque Tribune, The Santa Fe New Mexican, The Buffalo News: “News for Discerning Buffalo”, the Oneonta Daily Star, The Ithaca Journal The White Plains Journal-News, The Corning Leader, Newsday, The Glen Falls Post-Star, the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, the Elmira Star-Gazette, the Staten Island Advance, the Albany Times-Union, Willie the Wino’s Grand Central Station Restroom Scribblings, the Asheville Citizen Times, The Charlotte Observer, the Elizabeth City Daily Advance, The Greenville Daily Reflector, The Raleigh News & Observer, the Greensboro News & Record, The Southern Pines Pilot, the Wilimgton Star-News, The Bismarck Tribune, the Grand Forks Herald, the Akron Beacon Journal, The Toledo Blade, the Dayton Daily News, the Zanesville Times Recorder, The Daily Astorian, the East Oregonian, the Medford Mail Tribune, the Portland Oregonian, The Eugene Register-Guard, the Salem Statesman Journal, The Coos Bay World, The Beaver County Times, The Bucks County Courier Times, the Wilkes-Barre
Citizen's Voice, The Doylestown Intelligencer, the Uniontown Herald-Standard, The Allentown Morning Call, the Washington Observer-Reporter, The Philadelphia Daily News, The Philadelphia Inquirer, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader, the Anderson Independent-Mail, The Myrtle Beach Sun News, The Memphis Commercial-Appeal, The Jackson Sun, Nashville Scene, The Tennessean, The Berkeley Daily Planet, Berkeley Voice, The Berkeleyan, ¡Berkemundo!, The Baytown Sun (11,374), the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, the Lone Star Iconoclast, the Longview News-Journal, The Lufkin Daily News, the Waco Tribune-Herald, the Bennington Banner, the Brattleboro Reformer, The Burlington Free Press, the Rutland Herald, The Barre-Montpelier Times Argus, the Newport Daily Press, The Roanoke Times, The Virginian-Pilot, The Everett, The Olympian, The Tacoma News Tribune, The Bremerton Sun, the Tri-City Herald, the Walla Walla Union-Bulletin, the Boston Phoenix, the Charleston Gazette, the Huntington Herald-Dispatch, Howard Stern, the Madison Capital Times, The Green Bay News-Chronicle, the Racine Journal Times, the Kenosha News, the La Crosse Tribune, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The Sheboygan Press, The Wausau Daily Herald, The Guardian, The Independent, the Paris Daily Snivel, Der Spiegel, Democracy Now. The Huffington Post, The Progressive Review, Alternet, Dissident Voice, AntiWar.com, Common Dreams, Truthout.org, MoveOn.org, TomPaine.com, Counterpunch, The People’s Kool-Aid, BlameBush!, Mother Jones, High Times, The Progressive, New Internationalist, Multinational Monitor, Covert Action Quarterly, The American Prospect, Dollars and Sense, The Progressive Populist, The Weekly Standard, New Left Review, Pacifica Radio, Progressive Mind, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, YouTube, Marvel Comics, The Weekly World News, Indymedia, DailyKos, Wonkette, DemocraticUnderground, The Prairie Home Companion, Coast to Coast with George Noory, Pravda, Granma, and Al Jazeera.
 
OP
Superlative

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
Where did you find all those?

some Conservative website ?

Cause I know you didnt research to find those yourself.

Parrot.
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Where did you find all those?

some Conservative website ?

Cause I know you didnt research to find those yourself.

Parrot.
Pointing out how the libs own 99% of the media

but still bitch over talk radio and Fox News
 
OP
Superlative

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
It would appear by the size of that paragraph and all the media agancies in it, that the Left seems to either be providing the truth, or complete fabrications.

So FOXNEWS is the truth? and that entire paragraph is left wing liberal media, which is all lies?

Its blatently obvious that FOXNEWS leans to the right wing

but Im so clearly brainwashed with reputable factual journalism that I dont see the liberal Bias in all those news organisations listed above.

Which im sure there is in some of them.

But the Liberal media doesnt fully expose truths, or else they would lose Advertising dollars and dissapear into oblivion.

Whats the circulation of Z magazine?

Z magazine is truly left wing.

But CNN, cant be overtly Liberal

They have to have a right wing bias concerned with Corporate power, or else they wouldnt have any advertising.

CNN would fall off the air.
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Fox News is the fair and balanced network. The people seem to think so - they bury CNN and MSNBC in the ratings

Look at the Republican debate. The liberal hosts asked stupid and slanted questions and it has hard core lib reporters asking the "questions"

MEanwhile Dems said how they would not apprear on fFox News due to their bias

Go figure
 
OP
Superlative

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
Fox News is the fair and balanced network. The people seem to think so - they bury CNN and MSNBC in the ratings

Look at the Republican debate. The liberal hosts asked stupid and slanted questions and it has hard core lib reporters asking the "questions"

MEanwhile Dems said how they would not apprear on fFox News due to their bias

Go figure
FOXNEWS is very good at Infotainment.

it is incapable of delivering Fair and Balanced news, you are a case in point,
and proof that they spout baloney. and you buy it up. and rationalize and use ratings as a defence.

No one ever got popular telling the truth.

It is much easier telling people what they want to hear, and they will in fact pay you for it.

Like you, I bet if a FOXNEWS collection plate came to your door, you would give them your bank account number.

Blind faith will make any idiot follow blindly.
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
FOXNEWS is very good at Infotainment.

it is incapable of delivering Fair and Balanced news, you are a case in point,
and proof that they spout baloney. and you buy it up. and rationalize and use ratings as a defence.

No one ever got popular telling the truth.

It is much easier telling people what they want to hear, and they will in fact pay you for it.

Like you, I bet if a FOXNEWS collection plate came to your door, you would give them your bank account number.

Blind faith will make any idiot follow blindly.
Truth to libs is the exact opposite of what is really happening - when a Republican is President
 
OP
Superlative

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
Truth to libs is the exact opposite of what is really happening - when a Republican is President
Which is true.

Because when a Republican is president the truth is the exact opposite of what he says and does.
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Which is true.

Because when a Republican is president the truth is the exact opposite of what he says and does.
Libs keep saying how rotten the economy is - the biggest bull run in the Dow in 80 years - libs are sulking

This is just one example
 
OP
Superlative

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
Two members of the Ottaway family, a minority partner in Dow Jones & Company, released scathing statements yesterday saying that a takeover by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation would ruin Dow Jones and its crown jewel, The Wall Street Journal.

The controlling Bancroft family said last week that family members representing 52 percent of shareholder votes opposed Mr. Murdoch’s $60-a-share bid, a steep premium for a stock that had recently traded around $36. But their statement was vague, leaving it unclear whether family members objected to the price, to Mr. Murdoch or to a sale on any terms.

The Ottaways’ statements left no such ambiguity, questioning the journalism and the ethics of Mr. Murdoch and of News Corporation properties like the Fox News Channel and The New York Post, known for their right-wing political bent and racy tone.

James H. Ottaway Jr., a trustee for most of the family shares and formerly a longtime Dow Jones executive and board member, said, “Dow Jones has no good reason to be sold to anyone.” And the reputation of The Journal and Dow Jones for serious, accurate and objective work, he said, “would be damaged if Rupert Murdoch and his News Corporation take over Dow Jones,” he said.

“He has for a long time expressed his personal, political and business biases through his newspapers and television channels,” Mr. Ottaway said. The Post “regularly runs biased news stories and headlines supporting his friends, political candidates and public policies, and attacks people he personally opposes,” while at Fox News, “one man’s political opinions have become the editorial and news policy.”

He accused Mr. Murdoch of caving in to political pressure to advance his business interests, contrasting the actions of a News Corporation property, Star TV, in bowing to Chinese government censorship, with The Journal’s editorial page censure of Chinese human rights abuses. “I doubt its freedom to criticize the Chinese government would continue under Murdoch ownership,” he said.

The right answer to the News Corporation bid, Mr. Ottaway added, is that “Dow Jones is not for sale, at any price, to Rupert Murdoch.”

Attempts to reach a News Corporation spokesman yesterday were unsuccessful.

Mr. Murdoch wants The Journal in part to bolster the new cable business channel he intends to start this year, in competition with CNBC. He said in an interview early this year with The Journal that CNBC was too eager to report on scandals, and that his channel would take a more positive view of business.

That approach is disturbing, said James W. Ottaway, a son of Mr. Ottaway, who released a statement of his own yesterday.

“As an investor, I would be very concerned to live in an era of making investment decisions based on the Murdoch-filtered business information,” he said. “As a citizen, I would be afraid to live in a world where news is solely entertainment, and there is an agenda behind every story I read, watch or hear.”

The Bancrofts and the Ottaways are the sole owners of Dow Jones’ Class B stock, each share of which has 10 times the voting power of a regular share, and they also hold large numbers of the regular ones.

The Bancrofts are by far the dominant faction, with more than 64 percent of the shareholder vote owned by the family and its trusts. But the Ottaways, with more than 5 percent of the votes, are among the largest shareholders. And James H. Ottaway Jr., in particular, is a respected figure within Dow Jones and with the Bancroft family.

Mr. Ottaway, 69, headed his family’s chain of small newspapers in several states for more than 40 years, before and after it became a part of Dow Jones in 1970..........



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/07/business/media/07ottaway.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Lions and Tigers and Murdoch! Why the Left Fears the Fox Owner
Posted by Matthew Sheffield on May 7, 2007 - 12:48.
Rupert Murdoch, founder of the Fox network and Fox News Channel and CEO of media giant News Corp has the ability to make grown journalists cry. A quick survey of liberal media blogger Jim Romenesko's Media News page shows an industry in a panic over Murdoch's $5 billion offer to purchase Wall Street Journal parent company Dow Jones.

Why all the fear and loathing?

To put it simply, Rupert Murdoch is one of the few powerful individuals on the right who realizes the importance of the mainstream. Over the years, the right has had success building up an alternative infrastructure of think tanks, magazines, and web sites. Murdoch, however, has been one of the very few to understand that there is no need to "ghettoize" the libertarian and conservative viewpoints. That is why he is feared.

In the battle for ideas, there are essentially three main fronts: the intellectual front, the political front and the popular front.

Up until the early 1970s, the right had no forces on either front in this country. The wipeout faced by the Republican party at the hand of Franklin Roosevelt mostly did away with the right's political forces. Sure, there were still Republicans but they were generally more of the Dwight Eisenhower variety (who incidentally was the last Republican endorsed by the New York Times and the last one voted for by Dan Rather).

The elimination of the right's political side was inevitable, however, because its intellectual and popular fronts had long since withered away. What was called socialism in Europe had managed to attach itself in this country to classical liberalism. The Marxian theory of the "march of history" had been successfully grafted to American revolutionary tradition, along with a type of Christian socialism popularized by Edward Bellamy in his book Looking Backward.

The libertarian right which had provided the fertile ground for the diverse philosophies of Voltaire, Burke, Locke and others had been effectively extinguished in the American body politic. It wasn't until the mid-20th century and the publishing of Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind, the launch of National Review, and the emergence of philosophers Friedrich Hayek, Leo Strauss and Michael Oakeshott that the right's intellectual heart began beating again. This soon followed on the political end with the creation of the Heritage Foundation, the creation of many conservative and libertarian advocacy groups (including the Media Research Center in 1987) and the victory of Ronald Reagan.

There has been one piece missing, however, and that is the mainstreaming of conservatism. In point of fact, it is conservatism that is the moderate position in politics. It stands between those who would radically change society on some whim or media-generated sob story and those who would take America back to being a closed society defined by narrow international interests and restricted freedom for minorities.

If there is to be an emergence of a conservative popular front--the kind which pervades every aspect of the culture from Hollywood to the tech world to academia--Rupert Murdoch will have played a role in that. And that is why Murdoch is feared and hated by the left above almost everyone other than George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. The media empire that he has built from nothing represents the final threat to the one thing they still have a monopoly on: mainstream culture.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12575
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top