July 31, 2007
Murdoch Has Enough Votes to Buy Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. has secured the votes necessary to purchase Dow Jones & Co., Inc. which includes The Wall Street Journal itself. The win comes after a lengthy proxy battle in which the Bancrofts––the family that has acted as stewards of the company from afar for more than a century––resisted a very generous overture from Murdoch.
The Australian media tycoon eventually won the day by convincing a trust holding 9.1% of the Bancroft voting shares (the Bancroft's own 64% of Dow Jones voting shares) to support his bid. The Journal reports that this brings the total of voting shares held by the Bancrofts and in support of the deal to 38%. Combined with the 29% of voting shares held by the general public, who are expected to vote largely for approval, Murdoch appears to have a comfortable margin of victory.
Media columnist David Carr wrote that he expected Murdoch to eventually emerge triumphant back in May, citing the mogul's long history of sweet-talking owners of acquisition targets while dangling huge sums of money in front of them. The News Corp. purchase will likely come as a bitter disappointment to shareholders like the Ottaway family, who weren't just opposed to the deal, but seemed personally disdainful of Murdoch himself.
The New York Times notes the acquisition will add some prestige to the October launch of News Corp.'s Fox Business Channel. Dow Jones properties include a newswire service and other financial information providers like MarketWatch. Analysts expect that Murdoch will sell off the number of smaller newspapers Dow Jones currently owns, mostly in New England and New York.
The gaining of the Denver bloc of voting shares arrived after a taut game of brinksmanship by Murdoch and current shareholders. As a 5 p.m. deadline passed yesterday, Murdoch threatened to pull his bid entirely if he did not receive some support from the Bancrofts (some family members were holding out for an even higher price for their stakes in the company).
Now, Murdoch says he will keep out of WSJ editors' way and doesn't want to wreck the paper. But he does have the habit of eventually being involved on editorial. We're expecting some corporate synergy in the form of more analysis of American Idol winners (and losers) market success, Wall Street babes to be on page 3, and Steve Dunleavy to join the editorial board.
|
My teens as a comic book consumer prepared me for a world full of superheros and supervillains. Where are the superheros?
Time to cancel my subscription to the Journal. Unbelievably bad news for journalism and those of us who love the Journal.
Whatever. There was never a reason to read the WSJ (unless you are a fat capitalist pig), and the only reason to read the NY Post is because it's 25 cents.
The Journal was going downhill for years now. Fewer stories in the print edition, more "lifestyle" fluff. And the editorial page was already conservative. Explain to me how Murdoch will change it?
Czech, I guess you're a starving commie then?
#4: The editorial page was already conservative, correct. However, I believe Murdoch will further "dumb it down" to snippets like the pictured "Surrender Monkeys" and other nonsense that Fox News and the Post spew. At least now the right wing views have some sense of thought behind their views.
#3: You should seek therapy if you don't already.
Th WSJ backs the capital gains tax rate for hedge funds (and the people who run them) instead of the 35% tax rate the majority of hard working Americans HAVE to pay. Now, you may call me a communist for wanting equal tax rates and think I need therapy, but I am reality, you two are clowns.
#7: you are talking about the managers of hedge funds, an relatively small group. It's like getting upset that the UN diplomats don't pay parking tickets - a non-issue.
So you take this one issue and base your entire 'fat capitalist pig' campaign on it? That's just dumb.
I wouldn't say it's a relatively small group when you look at the money being hidden.
The WSJ will always continue to support what is best for making money even if it is not best for America. They always have. They will continue to be conservative under Murdoch, I don;t see what the problem with this purchase is. They both think the same anyways, look at the post, it's a tabloid WSJ.
I enjoy reading opposing viewpoints, and if they are done in relatively good taste (WSJ) that's a good thing. When they are done with no taste like in the Post, I have no interest. That's why I am cancelling my subscription to the Journal.
SmokedGouda must be smoking the weed. It is a big deal. It's billions of dollars a year. You don't raise taxes on the middle class - which is exactly what the Democrats have proposed - before you make sure the actual wealthy people are paying the full tax rates, whatever they are. It's stupid enough that Al Gore kept whining about the "wealthiest 1%" which lumps people making a few hundred thousand dollars a year in with people making hundred of millions. But you're condoning the wealthiest 0.0001% getting a free ride.
There are not enough bars in the World Financial Center nor is there enough Jameson's in the Western Hemisphere to get Dunleavy to leave Langan's in midtown.
He'd get runover on West Street like a stray rat.