Wall Street Journal to become a Fox News Outlet?
I am sure that libs are biting their nails as Rupert Murdock, owner of Fox News and other fair and balanced news sources, is the only current bidder for the Wall Street Journal. NPR has a report.
Murdoch has said he would invest in the Journal and ensure its editorial independence.
However, the union representing Journal
employees has been steadfastly opposed to Murdoch’s overture, saying
the tabloid reputation of his publications would likely damage the Journal’s quality and compromise its independence.
Now if only the NYT went up for sale…buahahaha!
12 Comments Post a comment
Seeker,
What a short-sighted piece of analysis. Obviously you do not read the WSJ with any regularity.
The WSJ and its parent DowJones have been and are a conservative bent news organization due to their business focus. The family majority owners are Conservatives.
The irony is that their stated opposition to a Fox buyout is the pattern of Murdoch’s newspaper chains world wide to play favorites with politicians that they are trying to court to get favorable government subsidies. This is the equivalent of Yellow Journalism in the modern age.
The WSJ is one of the few Conservative MSM Print organizations that maintains the highest journalistic and editorial standards in the country. The owners are not willing to risk jeopardizing that with a Fox take over. Period.
However, I am sure that since you heard this on NPR over the last few days you already know all this. Then again maybe not. Or maybe you are just doing a quick 5 minutes after you get into work post and applying your typical knee jerk rhetoric to your posts.
BTW, your joke about Fox taking over the NYT’s making Liberals shake is juvenile. It shows that you are going for the knee jerk reaction and rhetoric.
- s
(Shedding light on Seeker and keeping him honest).
Oh Seeker, I could have given you a McDonald’s Happy Meal answer, but the words and language would probably have to be banned by FCC broadcast sensors. So, enjoy the “obtuse and nuanced” reply above
BTW, your joke about Fox taking over the NYT’s making Liberals shake is juvenile. It shows that you are going for the knee jerk reaction and rhetoric.
I am going for humor, which some are lacking…
And actually, the WSJ is known for LIBERAL news coverage, but conservative editorials. But perhaps you knew that, or perhaps you were “just doing a quick 5 minutes after you get into work post and applying your typical knee jerk rhetoric to your comments.”
Check this out from wikipedia:
————————–
“A Measure of Media Bias,” a December 2004 study conducted by Tim Groseclose of the University of California, Los Angeles and Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri, stated that:
Speaking of The Wall Street Journal, they did a story that mentioned me, Cineaste, as a "Wizard of Buzz" :)
Here is the Wall Street Journal article I am mentioned in.
Here is my Stumble Upon site I was recognized for.
I hope that Rupert Murdock does not make the WSJ into a laughing stock like he did FOX (faux) News.
I am going for humor, which some are lacking…
I’ll say you are going for humor…juvenile humor. What’s next barfing and farting sounds applied to pictures of liberals? Get serious.
Also, Seeker, you did not respond to the original thesis I put forward.
That thesis once again, since you obviously missed it in the fast food line is this:
You fundamentally did not respond to that point.
See, instead of relying on a wikipedia entry you should point to me to specific op ed pieces and articles over the last +80 years of WSJ publication.
I read the WSJ daily (if not hourly) and have done so since about age 7 for investing purposes. I can point to hundreds of articles and op-ed pieces that are 100% Classic Conservative bent.
Try another Happy Meal answer to refute this. I await it.
I should add to my previous comment by saying this.
Don't just point me to links that others feel is Liberal, but point me to examples that you have personally read over the years that you feel is Liberal.
It takes a personal familiarity with a publication to pass judgement on its slant. That is, unless you like the cheap and rhetoric prone McDonald's method to assigning labels.
Cin,
I hope that Rupert Murdock does not make the WSJ into a laughing stock like he did FOX (faux) News.
The odds on Wall Street is that this deal will not go through. According to analysts. DowJones has gone up 20% on news that the company is in play for a Leveraged Buy Out with private equity.
According to CNBC (I just flipped of the tele a few moments ago), any suitor in this scenario would need to be willing to pay 15-20x earnings to acquire DowJones (e.g., Fox). That will not happen, there would be a proxy fight by Fox shareholders to stop it.
There is just too much private equity money out on the market right now to allow a flawed deal like what Fox is proposing to go through.
What I am kick myself for is not buying 100 shares in Dow Jones at the end of last week. Had I done that I would have been up 10 grand.
-s
<i.Don't just point me to links that others feel is Liberal, but point me to examples that you have personally read over the years that you feel is Liberal.</i>
Damned if I do, damned if I don't. If I refer you to expert material, you cry "invalid, why don't you think for yourself." If I give my own opinion and back it up w/ data, you cry foul that I'm narrowly selecting my data. I've taken a valid approach, and all you want to do is say "you didn't do a PhD thesis on this, so who are you to talk?" Totally lame.
I stand by my hastily drawn barb at the liberlas who will lose sleep over a Murdock purchase of the liberal/conservative WSJ. Libs hate FOX and Murdock, not (just) because of their schlock journalism, but because, as we saw in the recent comparison of the republican presidential debates on MSNBC and FOX, Fox does a superior job on some things (including analysis), and in many cases, are more popular than the whiny lying liberally-biased MSM.
I also note that CNN's conservative and liberal shows are both popular, though.
I think libs need to quake a little at losing power in the media, which until recently (last decade) they've had all to themselves. This is just another possible erosion of their power base, and that's why it is threatening, and why I have to endure ad hominem attacks from silver.
Seeker,
This is just another possible erosion of their power base, and that’s why it is threatening, and why I have to endure ad hominem attacks from silver.
If that is what you think I am doing, then great. Whatever floats your boat.
I fight against what I see is your constant Happy Meal parsing of politics, media, and conservative vs. liberal bias in the media.
You are right… you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. You don’t have the time to do more than put up a quick post and make some generalizations without really thinking about a balanced view. Instead you use the McDonald’s approach, which is very flawed.
It is not that I take issue with your position, it is that I take issue with your hastily drawn conclusions and your over-reliance on third party sources when talking about a publication that has been around long since your father was born. On other things, sure quote sources..it makes sense.
When it comes to media and liberal bias…particularly a paper that is regarded as the bible on Wall Street and within business (pure conservative bastion) you had better be able to back it up with personal examples.
Libs hate FOX and Murdock, not (just) because of their schlock journalism, but because, as we saw in the recent comparison of the republican presidential debates on MSNBC and FOX,
As a moderate and a realist, I rebuff that position out of hand as a “Happy Meal” and knee jerk reaction to being challenged to put up or shut up.
As a moderate, I cringe at Fox and Mudoch’s Media News (a worldwide news conglomerate) strictly because of their schlock and modern day take on Yellow Journalism. Nothing more. Unlike many Conservatives, I look at, read, and parse through all types of media regardless of bias to make a informed decision.
I also note that CNN’s conservative and liberal shows are both popular, though.
Popularity does not equate to good journalism and you know it. It equates to good ratings and revenue not necessarily news that the public SHOULD know about or be explained why they should care about it. Unfortunately, media caters to the lowest common denominator of the McDonalds world and is going for ad revenue. Nothing more.
Perhaps Seeker, this is just a reaction on your part to the fact that you WISH you had the time to do that and be truly scholarly instead of an arm-chair quarterback in pseuudo-intellectual clothing (definitely an ad-hominem attack on my part, but true as I see it).
As for attacks…
Your sense of Conservative superiority is smug, and sickening. It is the same reaction conservatives had to Northeast Liberal elitists. Get real.
If you don’t like what you perceive to be the attacks from the Liberal establishment, you had better get used to it. It is a mirror of the “no more mr. nice christian” and by extension conservative movement we saw in the late 80′s and 90s. We are fighting back.
I may know you in real life, but that does not mean I am going to continue to sit back and let you make false generalizations. I am done doing that. I will continue to challenge you with every generalization I see you make at every turn online.
If you think I am bad from my moderate positions, you had better watch out from the rest of the realist movement.
Bottom line, get used to it or as they say….”if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”
-s
Hi Seeker:
Since the NYT played a huge role in keeping the Whitewatergate non-story in the news, and played a role in keeping the distorted War against Gore going, and in publishing Judith Miller’s stenography of Cheney/Bush on Gulf war II, I think we liberals could do without such “liberal” media.
your friend
Keith