Bancroft family accepts News deal: DJ executive

[babylonsister]

Source: Reuters

Bancroft family accepts News deal: DJ executive

53 minutes ago

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Dow Jones & Co. Inc.'s controlling Bancroft family "has accepted" News Corp.'s $5 billion offer to buy the publisher of the Wall Street Journal, an executive of a Dow Jones unit said on Tuesday.

"The Bancroft family has accepted," John Prestbo, editor and executive director of Dow Jones Indexes, told reporters on Tuesday in Chicago. Dow Jones "will be part of News Corp," he said.

Prestbo told Reuters the information came from an internal company memo.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070731/ts_nm/dowjones_dc ;_ylt=AtVHZlY2ZnHXyaHX5zL.xqes0NUE

[Hawkeye-X]

1. Watch the WSJ subscription drop like flies to 90%

When they accept the deal.

It'll be another right-wing rag that noone cares about.

[KoKo]

2. It looked yesterday as if it might not go through. Sad News....

[Jack Rabbit]

3. Bancroft family accepts News deal - DJ executive

Source: Reuters

CHICAGO, July 31 (Reuters) - Dow Jones & Co. Inc.'s controlling Bancroft family "has accepted" News Corp.'s $5 billion offer to buy the publisher of the Wall Street Journal, an executive of a Dow Jones unit said on Tuesday.

Read more: http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.as...

---

RIP, The Wall Street Journal

[Karenina]

4. Shit.

[Barrett808]

5. The Foxification of WSJ

The delusional editorial page now on every page. A sad day for journalism.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. And the WSJ becomes a mouthpiece for the Misadministration

Say good bye to journalistic integrity and hello to government propaganda and outright lies delivered to your door every business day.

[MessiahRp]

12. For the most part, they already were.

Their editorial page is filled with Bush apologists.

Rp

[closeupready]

13. Right? Why is everybody sad about this?

Free market at work, isn't that what they wrote in favor of? Why should we be sad about Murdoch's acquisition of a paper most of us didn't read or listen to anyway?

[NashVegas]

16. Because In Spite of the Editorial Pages,

WSJ is one of the best newspapers anywhere and it's reporting pages are likely about to depart from the reality-based world.

[Orsino]

34. Other way around.

The Misadministration will be subjugated even further to Murdoch's will.

[saracat]

7. Didn't there used to be laws against monopolies?

[Hekate]

22. Oh, that's just so Teddy Roosevelt and the Trust Busters. Rendered quaint, you know.

I want my country back.

Hekate

[Greyskye]

8. crap

The WSJ is screwn.

[Ian David]

9. Oh, fuck them! n/t

[givemebackmycountry]

10. All I heard yesterday was that NEWS Corp didn't have the votes they needed....

And that things looked "grim" for Murdochs attempt to buy the WSJ.
What the hell happened in the past 24 hours?
Goodbye WSJ and hello New York Post II.

What a joke the media in this country has become.

All is well, pay no attention comrades, this is of no concern to you, all is well, continue shopping and working please.

[AzDar]

11. Thus, rendering it irrelevant.

[AllexxisF1]

14. Unbelievable

The proud journalistic integrity of the Wall Street Journal will be shattered overnight. Even though the Journal isn't exactly left leaning it is still an American institution and now it will belong in the checkout counter next to the National Inquirer.


Unbelievable.


I feel for those people who work there.

[Alexander]

15. Despite its editorial views, the WSJ had some decent material...

Too bad the WSJ will be reduced to toilet paper for pets overnight.

[Jack Rabbit]

20. The WSJ

At least a consumer of news could read the front page of the Journal and feel he had a set of facts with which he could form an opinion, regardless of whether that opinion corresponding to the Journal's editorial page or not.

That's not Murdoch's style.

[Jack Rabbit]

21. Kick

!!

[shaniqua6392]

17. Yuck. Cancel your subscriptions and let them know why.

MSNBC has a poll to vote if Rupert Murdoch is good or evil. Too funny. Most people think he is evil!!! I hope that paper goes down the shitter. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19817142/

[ProudDad]

19. Yes at 65%

as of 11:38 MST...

rupert will be laughing all the way to the bank...

[Greyskye]

23. 66% evil

	Is Rupert Murdoch evil?   * 4618 responses	
No, he's a shrewd businessman.   23%
Yes, he abuses his power.        66%
He does some good, some bad       7.8%
Who is Rupert Murdoch?            3.5% 

[ProudDad]

18. In a way, this is good news for workers

The WSJ was known for it's right-wing fascist editorial pages and ABSOLUTELY honest news articles.

Our corporate capitalist masters actually want to know what's going on in order to continue the exercise of their iron grip on our economy and our lives.

If rupert takes over, he'll destroy that honest reporting in favor of his propaganda needs... I sincerely hope he does.

When he does, our corporate capitalist masters will no longer be getting the truth and will therefore be rendered less powerful.

The working classes have had to depend on getting the truth by other avenues...there's no Worker or Movement news in the WSJ. So we will still have the truth while our enemies will not...

I like it!!!

[Newsjock]

24. It's Official: Dow Jones and News Corp. Boards Back Deal

Source: Editor & Publisher

Reporters Sarah Ellison and Matthew Karnitschnig put it succinctly, if a bit sadly, in their front-page Wall Street Journal article for Wednesday: "A century of Bancroft-family ownership at Dow Jones & Co. is over.

"Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. sealed a $5 billion agreement to purchase the publisher of The Wall Street Journal after three months of drama in the controlling family and public debate about journalistic values."

Murdoch, perhaps to mollify outside and inside critics, announced he would add four pages of news coverage to the Journal, according to the paper.

After reports predicting the outcome all day, the deal was approved by the boards of both companies, meeting separately. The two companies then set out to sign a merger agreement right away. Then it will be put to shareholders, who now have signaled acceptance.

Read more: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_di...

[aquart]

25. How did Bloomberg prices react?

[flippidot]

28. re: How did Bloomberg prices react?

Bloomberg isn't publicly traded.

[aquart]

33. Good heavens. I had no idea.

So is there another way to tell how this affects them?

[Kutjara]

26. I wonder if that'll be four pages of "fair and balanced" news coverage...

...like at Murdoch's other great "news" venture, Faux.

It's a sad day when you find yourself mourning the transfer of a media empire from one group of plutocrats to another.

[SteppingRazor]

27. Here's a view that should be breathtakingly unpopular here -- is this a bad thing?

The WSJ's editorial page is already infamously to the right of Mussolini and Torquemada. Murdoch slithering into the CEO's chair isn't going to change that. What it may change is the look of the paper. The WSJ finally debuted a lifestyle section a couple years back, a stodgy concession to the idea that people read more than stock quotes. With Murdoch in charge, the painfully gray WSJ will probably become more colorful and, dare I say, more interesting.

There are, of course, larger issues here -- the freedom-quenching stupidity of media consolidation being prime among them -- but looked at simply in terms of its political outlook and what it means for the WSJ itself, I don't think it's necessarily going to hurt anything.

[Kutjara]

30. I see your point, but...

...I do think that the fact of one of the world's most toxic media moguls absorbing such an important brand is a very bad thing.

I remember reading a scifi story many years ago by Greg Egan, an Aussie writer, in which all journalists are called, pejoratively, "murdochs." There's a very good reason for this. Murdoch is a virus, and he is visiting a plague on journalism. If anyone else had bought the Dow Jones group, I'd be less worried. To me, this is one of the last locks opening on Leviathan.

[SteppingRazor]

31. And I certainly see your point too...

I am, after all, a journalist by trade (though if someone called me a "murdoch," I'd slug'em ). Believe me, from a macro- standpoint, I totally agree that this is freakin' terrifyin'. I just figured the micro- outlook was worth pointing out. For the WSJ itself, this might not be such a bad thing, and it certainly won't drastically change the paper's political stance. But, certainly, when one looks at this in the context of journalism as a whole, to put it as delicately as possible, it bodes ill.

[MadHound]

35. I agree with you on this in regards to the editorial page

WSJ's editorial page was always to the right of Attila. However they were always honest brokers when it came to hard news. If you were looking for a publication that had relatively no spin on economic news, WSJ was it.

Sadly now, it's going to become another tool for Murdoch, and honest reporting will go down the drain. Sadly this means that once again the ordinary person is going to find their options even more limited in getting hard news, especially financial and market news. That's what the real shame about all this.

[Middle finga]

29. Democratic politicians need to step up and put a halt this bullshit

there should be limits on media ownership period. This is not good for america, Democrats better wakeup and deal with this problem or they'll find themselves in a permanent minority forever cause the media can turn an election in a heartbeat.

[Indenturedebtor]

32. I agree completely

However, I think that this may work to our favor. Murdoch will undoubtebly twist the financial news to boost his own interests. Now I'm nearly certain that he does already, but I hope that when he gets caught doing it to the journal it may open the lid on his propaganda.

Meh heres a little piece of what hope i have left.