Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (21401)	8/2/2007 10:33:24 PM
From: sandintoes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

Liberals Confused About Whether They 'Hate Most' WSJ or Murdoch An editorial in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal tweaked the New York Times and other liberal critics of Rupert Murdoch's takeover of the Journal. Noting how some of the fussier media outlets are competing with the Journal at a time when all newspapers are fighting the Internet tide, "readers can judge if the tears these papers and their writers claim to shed for the Journal's future are real, or of the crocodile variety." As for the ideology Murdoch's News Corp. might bring to the Journal, the editors of the famously conservative editorial page mocked: "The nastiest attacks have come from our friends on the political left. They can't decide whose views they hate most -- ours, or Mr. Murdoch's. We're especially amused by those who say Mr. Murdoch might tug us to the political left. Don't count on it." The editors' common-sense bottom line: "Editorial independence enhances the prospects for business success. The more credible a publication is, especially one that specializes in financial and economic reporting, the more readers and advertisers it is likely to have....No sane businessman pays a premium of 67% over the market price for an asset he intends to ruin." [This item, by Rich Noyes, was posted Wednesday on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ] An excerpt from the August 1 editorial: Make no mistake: Business success is vital to editorial independence, precisely because it provides the resources to report and comment in ways that might offend advertisers or governments. We also believe the reverse is true: Editorial independence enhances the prospects for business success. The more credible a publication is, especially one that specializes in financial and economic reporting, the more readers and advertisers it is likely to have. We like to think our readers buy the Journal because of the credibility built over a century, and we believe this is the heart of the "value proposition" that Mr. Murdoch is willing to pay $5 billion to purchase. No sane businessman pays a premium of 67% over the market price for an asset he intends to ruin. There are nonetheless critics, especially in the journalism world, who claim this is precisely what Mr. Murdoch will proceed to do. And they have certainly had a merry time bashing him and the Journal these past few months. Some of these voices, however, are commercial or ideological competitors who have their own interest in undermining the Journal's credibility. Both the New York Times and the Financial Times have been especially aggressive in assailing the potential News Corp. purchase of the Journal. These also happen to be the two publications that Mr. Murdoch has explicitly said he might invest more to compete against. Readers can judge if the tears these papers and their writers claim to shed for the Journal's future are real, or of the crocodile variety. The nastiest attacks have come from our friends on the political left. They can't decide whose views they hate most -- ours, or Mr. Murdoch's. We're especially amused by those who say Mr. Murdoch might tug us to the political left. Don't count on it. More than one liberal commentator has actually rejoiced at the takeover bid, on the perverse grounds that this will ruin the Journal's news coverage, which in turn will reduce the audience for the editorial page. Don't count on that either. Such an expectation overlooks that the principle of "free people and free markets" promoted in these columns has an appeal far beyond this newspaper. We fill a market niche for such commentary that is too little met by other newspapers and media outlets. But we have every confidence that if we vanished, or let our standards fall, the marketplace would find an alternative. What ultimately matters are the ideas, and their basic truth. END of Excerpt For the editorial in full: www.opinionjournal.com The August 1 CyberAlert recounted: Though many journalists impose their views regularly in biased political coverage, and last year the New York Times publisher made clear his left-wing world view, on Tuesday night the broadcast networks framed Rupert Murdoch's acquisition of the Wall Street Journal around what agenda the "controversial" Murdoch will "impose." That matches the "fear" expressed in online journalism forums and media magazines about Murdoch's "conservative" agenda. Leading into pro and con soundbites, CBS's Kelly Wallace described Murdoch as "a conservative who put his imprint on the New York Post and brought topless women to the Sun in London. His critics say he may not impose tabloid on the Journal, but will impose his point of view." NBC's Andrea Mitchell called Murdoch "a controversial press lord" and declared Murdoch "deeply conservative," but noted he's also a "pragmatic" man who has been "a supporter of liberal politicians." Mitchell relayed how Murdoch insists he "does not mix politics and business," but, she cautioned, "still, some are skeptical." The liberal Ken Auletta of The New Yorker contended Murdoch "often" uses "his publications and his media to advance either his business or his political interests." Over on ABC, David Muir warned that Murdoch "already wields great power over much of what we watch and read" and asserted that "critics caution being a brilliant businessman does not guarantee brilliant journalism." After a soundbite from Auletta about how Murdoch's politics influence his publications, Muir worried: "For that reason, this has turned into a painful decision for members of the Bancroft family, who controlled the Wall Street Journal for more than 100 years. Sell for $5 billion? Or is that selling out? There were tears within the Bancroft family and fears in the newsroom." On screen, a WSJ headline: "Fear, Mixed with Some Loathing; Many Reporters at Wall Street Journal Fret Over Murdoch's Arrival." For the entire CyberAlert article, go to: www.mediaresearch.org -- Brent Baker

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (21401)	12/15/2007 4:49:41 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

Meet the Editorial Committee Our task under the News Corp.-Dow Jones merger agreement. Friday, December 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST Shareholders of Dow Jones & Co. have voted to approve the acquisition of Dow Jones by News Corp. As a condition of the sale, Dow Jones and News Corp. entered into a contract establishing a five-person committee charged with safeguarding Dow Jones' editorial independence and integrity. Permit us to briefly introduce ourselves and outline our mission to readers as well as to an interested public. The committee members are: • Louis Boccardi, president and chief executive officer of the Associated Press, the world's largest news organization, from 1985 until 2003 and its executive editor for a decade before. Mr. Boccardi was a member of the Pulitzer Prize board from 1994 to 2003, and served as chairman in 2002. • Thomas J. Bray, editorial page editor of The Detroit News between 1983 and 2000, and subsequently a columnist for the News. Between 1964 and 1983, Mr. Bray served as a reporter and bureau chief in The Wall Street Journal news department, and also as associate editor of its editorial page. He will serve as chairman of the committee. • Jack Fuller, retired president of the Tribune Publishing Co., the newspaper division of Tribune Co. Mr. Fuller was awarded a Pultizer Prize in 1986 for editorials on constitutional issues. Later he served as editor and publisher of the Chicago Tribune and in 2000 as chairman of the Pulitzer Prize board. He is the author of "News Values: Ideas for an Information Age" (University of Chicago Press, 1996). • Nicholas Negroponte, cofounder the Media Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is the author of "Being Digital" (First Vintage Books, 1995). He is currently on leave from MIT to lead One Laptop Per Child, a not-for-profit organization he also founded to provide affordable computers to the youth of developing nations. • Susan M. Phillips, dean of the George Washington University School of Business, where she is also a professor of finance. Ms. Phillips served as a governor of the Federal Reserve System from 1991 to 1998 and chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from 1983 to 1987. To assure its independence, the committee (formally known, with lawyerly infelicity, as the "Special Committee") will choose its own successors, subject to the approval of News Corp., which, according to the contract, shall not be unreasonably withheld. The committee has the right to hire, at News Corp. expense, such expert help as it feels it may require, and will have guaranteed access to company records and documents of News Corp. and Dow Jones. We will meet at least four times a year, and more often as required. The committee intends to conduct its deliberations in strict confidence. But unlike some protective arrangements elsewhere, the provisions of the contract give the committee the right to publish its findings and decisions in The Wall Street Journal and other Dow Jones publications. It also has the right to seek legal enforcement of its decisions. The committee's charge is fairly specific (the full agreement can be found on the Dow Jones investor relations Web site as part of the proxy materials filed with the SEC): It "shall have rights of approval" over the hiring or removal of three key editors--the managing editor and the editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, and the managing editor of Dow Jones Newswires under its current structure. Under the agreement, these editors in turn have the sole power to hire and fire subordinates, control the allocation of resources within departmental budgets set by News Corp., and make all news and editorial decisions. The editors also have the right to appeal disputes over these matters to the Special Committee. The same holds for issues arising from the Dow Jones Code of Conduct and a set of five principles adopted by News Corp. that require, among other things, that "there are no hidden agendas in any journalistic undertakings" and that opinions "represent only the applicable publication's own editorial philosophies centered around the core principle of 'free people and free markets.'" The committee does not see itself as an ombudsman, riding daily herd on individual stories, newsroom practices and the news or editorial decisions of the editors themselves. Nor do we see ourselves as a barrier to change. The contract of which we are stewards also gives News Corp. the right, inherent in ownership, to make business decisions, as well as set the broad policies governing content and makeup of the individual publications. The central challenge to the committee will be to distinguish between change and practices that might threaten Dow Jones' well-earned reputation for calling things as it sees them. We are impressed by News Corp.'s willingness to enter into such a contract and place considerable resources behind it. We take News Corp. officials at their word that they see no gain in placing Dow Jones' integrity at risk. We are prepared to carry out our responsibilities. But we are hopeful that the mutual stake in the success of the publications of Dow Jones will make that unnecessary. opinionjournal.com