guerillasphere said:
The WSJ acquisition is nothing more than a play for content for the forthcoming Fox Business Channel to compete with CNBC. Right now CNBC only has one political show (hosted by righty Larry Kudlow who shockingly said today that Clinton is a top candidate) in an otherwise remarkably pure slate of business/finance coverage. Besides Kudlow's show (1 hour in a 4am to 6pm programming day PST), they are unbiased and force guests/anchors to fully disclose all holdings/interests in companies/markets they comment on. If the new WSJ and Fox Biz ignore these principles for the sake of political (or trading) agendas they'll fail -- it just doesn't fly in finance media. However, Fox Biz can take punk bitch Kudlow, that'd be just fine with me.
This is only partially correct. That Fox Business channel is never going to make any money so that isn't the motivating reason for buying Dow Jones. Murdoch wants to leverage the WSJ and DJ brand names across his media holdings throughout the world, particularly in his native Australia. It is clear he intends to trade on the credibility of the WSJ and DJ names to create cross-branded content and publications in other parts of the globe wher News Corp. has extensive holdings.
I think you are right here.
Plus, I think it is kind of cute that people think that the WSJ editorial board has not been promoting Murdoch's agenda all along.
Sudden said:
Considering that, according to CBS, during her Senate re-election campaign Mrs Clinton raised $50 million and spent $37 million, the size of these contributions only shows how unlikely Murdoch thinks a Clinton victory is. He's simply buying himself a little insurance just in case hell actually freezes over next year. I'm bewildered and frustrated by the complacency of liberals, both here in the UK and in the US, who think 2008 will be a cakewalk for the Democrats. Hillary is the new George McGovern. Only not as sexy.
Um, no. George McGovern had principles. Hillary spews out whatever she just fellated out of her corporate overlords. Big difference.
Edit: Actually, I shouldn't say that. It gives the time-honored practice of fellatio a bad rap.
NickFaust said:
I think it is kind of cute that people think that the WSJ editorial board has not been promoting Murdoch's agenda all along.
Very true.
My father reads the Wall Street Journal for business purposes (only), and the positions taken by its editorial staff have more than once caused him to make disparaging comments and shake his head in sheer disbelief.
The greater question is whether the WSJ will wind up like the rest of Murdoch's papers and news channels. Where the editorial position bleeds into the news content.
NickFaust
USA
April 2004
AUG 09, 2007 06:48 PM