Honestly, it initially was covered. There was a blog on DailyKos tracking the story as it broke. However, within 8 hours (at market close) the bid was dead. The family won't sell. They basically said as much this past Sunday on the WSJ Online. I really don't think that Murdoch is going anywhere with this deal. That's probably why no one is talking it up.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/06/news/newsmakers/bc.dowjones.shareholder.reut/index.htm?postversion=2007050706

The WSJ is already and right wing organ so a purchase by another right wing zealot is a wash.

Hear, hear. I wondered exactly the same thing.

While the Journal's opinion pages are junk, their news pages (which I read daily for many years) are excellent, I would say probably more reliable than e.g. the New York Times (though obviously they don't have the same breadth). They have broken many financial scandals over the years. So turning the Journal's news pages into yet another house organ of the GOP would be yet another assault on the already sorry state of our public discourse.

The left blogosphere thinks the Murdoch bid is irrelevant to us because a) the WSJ is already irrelevant because behind of sub wall and infestation with antediluvian opinion and b) the MSM in general is a lost cause anyway. Murdoch grabs up and guts the worst of the more respectable organs of American fascism? So what?

I guess the reason I have been jumping up and down about it is the fact that the Wall Street Journal is already a right-wing rag. True, Murdock might water down the news end of the Journal, which has been pretty straight, but he could hardly push the editorial policy any further to the right. And, not too many of us rely on the Journal for news news (as distinct from business news).

This question has been something I've been wondering myself. Even the BBC World Business Review covered this issue (they're for the takeover), but the moderate and liberal blogosphere seems to be oblivious. I thought about emailing Kevin Drum pleading for him to take it up, but if he/they haven't caught it by now I figure why bother.

A couple of things come to mind:

One is that most people aren't aware that Dow Jones is the publisher of WSJ, and it also isn't being brought up in most of the MSM stories.

Another is that people think of this in terms of what it would do to the busiiness coverage and the editorial page - the other stories are not what people think of when you mention WSJ, even though they're probably the part most people are reading.

Gotta disagree, Sam. That's true of their opinion pages (which they give away for free online), but not of their news pages (for which they charge).

I think it's worth highlighting a common strategy here. Borrow/buy someone else's credibility and use it to advance your own agenda. Rupert Murdoch doesn't really have much credibility for accuracy and depth in his reporting. But WSJ does.

George W. Bush doesn't have much credibility in highlighting WMD intelligence. But Colin Powell does.

When the WH hired John DiUlio for it's Faith-Based initiative, it was for his credibility, not for his ideas. They weren't the slightest bit interested in his ideas.

It's all about the credibility, and the subsequent abuse of it. And they won't limit themselves to playing such tricks on liberals, they'll play any suckers they can find, right or left.

While the editorial section of the WSJ is run by right-wing zealots, somehow they still manage to have some of the most unbiased news reports of any newspaper in America. It would truly be a sad day if Murdoch were to buy the paper and politicize the news section.

The only possible reason Murdoch wants to take over the WSJ is to kill it.

The business community isn't going to tolerate Murdoch foxing up the WSJ. They want dry facts to make billion dollar business decisions.

I posted this the day of Murdoch's bid:

http://www.wordyard.com/2007/05/01/murdoch-journal/

"I would hate to see the Journal’s reasonably independent and often irreplaceable news coverage deteriorate; it is a central part of my daily information diet. But if the Journal’s grand newsroom tradition falls victim to a corporate acquisition, I can’t help feeling, also, that the fate is fitting. The Journal — its news pages as well as its editorial pages — is the daily bible of global capitalism, encompassing all of that term’s positives and negatives. It is a chronicle of the power of markets to reshape institutions. How could it expect to be exempt itself?"

Andrew Leonard also posted on his How the World Works blog:

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/05/01/murdoch_wsj/index.html

So the Salon corner of the liberal blogosphere, at least, has not been silent on this one...

in my opinion, the reason no one is making a stink over this is that a murdoch take-over would be fantastic news for the left.

the WSJ and NYT still get credibility points from all those who read them, cite them, refer to them, and use them to help them prove their case in an argument.

yet most of the left sees both papers as dramatically pro-bush, pro-iraq invasion, and anti-little guy. so a murdoch buy out allows us to push along our point that the MSM outlets are ALL dens for liars, thieves, and right wing zealots.

Media consolidation is an unmitigated evil in this country. If for no other reason, Murdoch should not be ABLE to buy the WSJ.

Not that the opinion page would show much change, but the ways news is reported? There are myriads of ways straight news can be presented, and to the extent news is presented in ways favored by Murdoch the world is ill served.

Jake

The first thing that ran though my mind when I heard Murdoch was trying to buy the WSJ was: Oh, dear, someone at the WSJ has finally gotten to the bottom of Murdoch's business practices.

I know billions of dollars is too much to pay to stop a story or two but, hey, it's a win-win for Murdoch. If he loses the bid, and the WSJ runs, say, a set of stories based on massive leak from, say, a well-placed News Corp. sysadmin, then it gives him some cover--they are just running these stories for a bit of payback. And if the bid goes through, well, he can neuter the WSJ news desk and then sell off the other assets and go from there.

Some day, a major Murdoch leak is going to happen. I dunno if journalists spend time with tech guys but if you do, you'll know that Murdoch's empire is built on some very iffy business practices. It's all compartmentalized so that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. There are shells inside shells inside shells and a ton of dodgy three ring binders in safes. The security around the core business is intense but some day...

The day Murdoch buys the WSJ is the day I cancel my subscription and switch to the Financial Times. If I'd wanted to read the print edition of Fox News, I'd have subscribed to the Nat'l Review.

First, yes, I'm in agreement liberal bloggers should be outraged, or at minimum, energized to stop Murdoch's takeover bid. However, the reason there may not be such a huge rallying cry is that the WSJ's editorial policy is already notably far into right wingnut territory. So, you're asking liberals to rally to the cause of saving at least a partially stigmatized rightwing organ of propaganda to begin with. I know, I know, the reporting is separate from the editorial page. But as a general rule, liberals don't like editorial jihads against public policies-- nor the papers that support them --no matter how good the reporting -- so that might explain their hesitance in caring too much about the WSJ. It's not logical, perhaps, but I think it's real.

As a political organ, The Wall Street Journal runs lengths ahead of anything Fox prints or broadcasts. Those who think its reporting surpasses its editorial page have not been reading since 1992.

The Journal's respectability hinges on two factors: large reporting budgets and a role as the general auditor for the business community. It is this role that News Corp would like to relieve.

The beginning of business articles generally reflect the business's public relations spin.(That format, to be fair, is standard for most business reporting.) All the countervailing facts are inserted chaotically, as unconnected dots, at the end. Thus the boring story lengths.

The opinion pages of the WSJ are good to track the VRWC and their latest talking points in a slightly more erudite fashion than Drudge. (Although it mostly serves to drive up my blood pressure on my morning commute.) However, the news pages are some of the best journalism still around (a low standard these days, I'll admit). I am deeply worried that Murdoch will succeed but confess I've been reassured by the Bancrofts holding out. If they don't, I would have to really cancel my subscription, as I try to avoid all Murdoch properties.

Greg, it might be an idea to put in an update explaining the huge distinction between their news and opinion pages. It's important. The opinion pages could hardly get worse, but the news pages are worth fighting for.

The Journal's news reporting is still above average (in a very low world) but it's not what it was back in the glory days (the late '80s and early '90s, for my money).

The problem is that when you buy the news pages your money also goes to pay the NSDAP members in the op-ed section. I finally got to the point where I couldn't swallow that any more and cancelled my subscription.

In the end, Dow Jones versus Murdoch is too much like watching a GOP primary race. Too bad they can't ALL lose.

thanks, crust, will do

Hello Greg,
Fist of all I think the lack of comment has something to do with the fact that it is just too horrible to contemplate. It's a bit like hearing that the Germans have established a bridgehead on the left bank of the Meuse and we are trying to contain the situation. You feel paralysis in your gut.

The reason it is so horrific is that it would go a long way to normalising subtler but consistently biased right wing opinions and ideas into "neutral" newscopy. It would also insure that some stories with a fatual anti conservative bent, let's say the price fixing of the unregulated US electricity market or ecoli outbreaks due to a lax republican FDA, never get reported.

We have seen this subtle right wing slant infiltrate a supposedly neutral newservice - the Associated Press -(how the hell did that happen by the way and who is the billionaire conservative dick head who made it happen?)
We can ill afford to have another outlet that issues the information blocks that larger stories are made of be poisoned at the source. If the WSJ were to fall to murdoch it would only leave Thompson-Reuters and the various national wire services -Agence Press France, Candian Press, BBC, etc ... to provide real facts instead of facts convienient to the right.

The net result would be to further isolate America in an informational black hole of right wing ideas.

The sooner Mr Murdoch shakes this mortal coil the safer American Democracy will be. I hope and pray that his next of kin are not as politically malicious as the old bastard himself. Does anyone know?

Eh.
I think Murdock is playing this. If he turned out successful, then hey, I got the Journal and all its credibility. But the main reason he is doing this is his launch of Fox Financial Network, getting people used to the sight of smarmy Niel Cavuto and others as he offers them quotes in various interviews. This is aimed at a particular population, trying to get their attention.

I was horrified to read about the Murdoch attempt to purchase Dow Jones and somewhat relieved by the resistance of the Bancroft family, but we all know that resistance will crumble at the right price. That's what's so scary about this move.

But I'm not surprised by the lack of concerted noise. There are so many stories out there of conservative deception, cruelty, misogyny, racism and so on that the Murdoch story is just a drop in the bucket. But it's a drop of acid, slowly and steadily corroding the press until nothing that resembles a free press in a democratic society remains. Perhaps that is why Murdoch has chosen this point in time to make his move.

The WSJ news pages are reality-based and will go after corporate scandals, for example the options-dating reporting last Fall. I read it *for* the long stories, and the latest redesign is right to recognize those as the paper's strength. If I want snippets I can get them online, free.

I don't give a monkey's about the two opinion pages. I could manage without the newish "personal journal" section combining 3rd-rate conservative cultural journalism with reviews of $100-a-bottle wine.

I subscribe to the online version of the Journal, but would definitely cancel if Murdoch buys it. While I rarely agree with their editorial stands, the Journal does some great, aggressive reporting on corporate scandals. I haven't found their news pages nearly as one-sided as I expected to when I subscribed.

The WSJ and Barrons are already right wing rags, heavily slanted to the view that extreme wealth is its own justification. A Murdoch takeover would just make it more obvious. There is nothing to be lost here, except any latent credibility that WSJ still has.

If you think the WSJ is a right wing rag now, just wait. You may take issue with the absurdity of the op ed page, but I do not doubt more than one employee of the SEC scans its headlines during the workday. It is a big mistake to lambast the journal. As for silence that comes from the fact that there is practically nothing that can be done about it anyway. If the price is right and people want to sell, they will. The fact that Ottaway came out against it is very troubling and a sure sign that if he is concerned that we all should be--left, right, and center. Unless someone knows another billionaire who wants to sweep in and rescue the WSJ....let's hope Edwards or Obama calls this bet (something along the lines of making Wall Street safe for independent journalism). It could get some political traction and would work on the stump (Murdoch Buys Wall Street) and since we all know that there is no love lost between Fox and the Dems they have nothing to lose. What I can't understand is why Murdoch wants the Journal. Is he trying to buy a little class? The irony is that if the journal goes under, a huge new market for the wall street muckraker opens up. Every day investors/stockholders want good information, if they are not sure they can trust the information they are getting, they will pay for something they can. Maybe Josh and the gang should lease larger offices downtown. You know what they say--whenever the Lord closes a door he opens a window.... Murdoch is unassailable short of establishing a beach head on his own private island or confiscating his satellites he can do what he will.

The Right has been howling for years about the "liberal media." If indeed we have a liberal media, then one would think that further media consolidation would be a nightmare for conservatives, no? Why aren't they raising their voices in protest of increased concentration of media ownership?

Thought the deal was dead. I believe that's why the hue and cry rose then fell so fast.

There's no such thing as a truly dead deal, unless one or more of the principle participants dies. (And even then, maybe yes maybe no.)

Look at it this way: Saying "no" to an offer may mean "no", or it may mean "Your offer is too low". I don't think anyone knows for sure which "no" this was.

As a former Dow Jones employee, I can say they are one of the least popular employers in the news biz. Sure, they pay well, which keeps lots of writers/editors on board. But their management practices are authoritarian, at times ruthless, and they value loyalty over comptence, conformity over diversity, etc. They've also failed to find a market with their foreign publications (Europe and Asian editions of the Journal) and killed off Asia's most prestigious and popular business magazines, the Far Eastern Economic Review in a badly misguided series of editorial and personnel decisions. So while the WSJ may be seen as a notable success here in the US, the company has been less than visionary and often narrowly focused on their almost monopolistic niche at home. It would hardly be diaster, in my view, if Murdoch moved in and ended this poorly run and uninspired family business.

The WSJ opinon page is full on nutters. The news section is excellent however. As bad as mostof the major papers'opinion sections were in the run up to the Iraq debacle it was the "news" stories that really sold the war to the American public. If Murdoch gets control of the Journal then it will be much easier to influence the straight news section of the paper. We could be looking at stories generally relegated to the Moonie Times running on the front page of the WSJ.

Who cares if the wsj is bought by Murdoch. Its already a right wing vassal anyway. At least having Murdoch own it sends a clear message its news is biased to the otherwise unaware.

"Respected newspaper"? The WSJ pushed the endless investigation of Clinton; the WSJ cheered the invasion of Iraq. They didn't care about the facts. Who cares if Murdoch buys the WSJ? It's a lousy paper and it'll just get worse.