So it’s not all about preserving editorial integrity
Jul 27 2007From a WSJ dispatch of a couple minutes ago:
Key Bancroft Family Trust to Vote
Against News Corp. Bid for Dow JonesThe Denver branch of the Bancroft family, Dow Jones & Co.’s controlling shareholder, is to vote against accepting News Corp.’s $60 a share offer, putting pressure on News Corp. to raise its offer, according to a person familiar with the situation.
They think that the B shares held by the Bancrofts should receive a 10-20% premium, based on their supervoting powers.
This, of course, seems to ignore the 60%+ premium that’s already on the table. But that’s not really what’s happening. Like so much else in life, corporate buyouts are a study of relativity, and relative to the much-more-numerous A shares, the B shares have always hit above their weight in corporate decision making at Dow Jones. It seems that the Denver branch of the family is much less concerned with the silly notion that Murdoch is going to destroy a jewel of American journalism than they are with trying to ensure that the family continues to be rewarded far above its due.
I’m happy not to have a dog in this race, given my lack of position in DJ, and am reminded of a joke whose punchline ends with “We’re already settled that issue, now, we’re just dickering over price.”
When you realize that the same man whose Sunday Times in London runs anti-Semitic headlines (remember the Arab germ?) and whose New York paper is a laughingstock of journalism (”Headless Corpse in Topless Bar”) is about to gain control of the one paper that can singlehandedly influence the American economy - that can make or break virtually anyone or any company - the nightmare that would result after the deal is done should put off anyone considering it.
I wonder if Gov. Spitzer (D-NY) finds the NYPost to be a laughingstock after their journalists broke the Troopergate story? Your comment, Joe, is a reflection of knee-jerk liberalism that seeks to tarnish any commentary that doesn’t adhere to the prevailing leftist views of most media in this country.
Being a laughingstock in journalism (presumably laughed at by journalists?) isn’t nearly the stinging indictment that it was back before it became clear that many news sources are laughable these days, to one degree or another.
That said, the WSJ really is a cut above, and concerns about its voice being degraded or destroyed have resonance with me. But here’s the thing - say what you will about Murdoch, but he’s demonstrably not a stupid man, doesn’t run a bad company, doesn’t buy good things to destroy them, and arguably doesn’t destroy the things he buys, in any event.
I can’t think of any conceivable argument that would support an assertion he plans to do anything other than pay a lot of money for Dow Jones, and then to provide capital to make it into a better business. He would be hard-pressed to make the WSJ a radically better paper, but he can do something that DJ hasn’t been able to do - fix an underlying business model that’s been in need of fixing for many years.