Plus their comics section wasn't that good anyway.

Murdoch is building what he hopes to be the world's premier business news agency. With the new Fox Business channel, and the print media anchored by the WSJ and Barron's--it's possible.

I'm a big Bloomberg fan myself, but I find it amusing when people promise to cancel their WSJ subscriptions. And do what instead?--I ask. Financial Times is a common answer, but they don't put out anything like Barron's, and don't have a comprehensive online registry like DJ does.

RiR, it looks as though a lot of WSJ subscribers are going to FT. That is what I am doing. From what I understand (at least from my t/c with FT) they do have an online registry like DJ.

I really liked the WSJ and I am kind of tempted to wait it out to see what happens, but I have to go with my principles here. I don't need to read Murdoch's interpretation of the economy every day.

LOL. The WSJ has the most conservative editorial page of any paper in the country. And you haven't minded that all this time. Are you worried that Murdoch is going to be writing articles now?

The WSJ is the holy grail of all the mainline brokerages houses and wirehouses. The idea that the FT will pick up a lot of subscribers is preposterous--they simply don't have the coverage of the US economy that the WSJ does, let alone that of the global markets. And Murdoch knows this, which is why he pursued the WSJ, and not the FT.

you worried that Murdoch is going to be writing articles now?

I am worried that he will influence what goes into the paper.

Finally the WSJ will have color photographs of women in bathing suits and keep us up to date with Paris Hilton's glamorous lifestyle.

Sad day as the WSJ was one of the last truly independent newspapers left in this country. Now WSJ subscribers will get Murdoch's interpretation of financial news.

Editorially the WSJ has been on the same page as Murdoch for a long time.

What I hope for is that one day in the not so distant future Murdoch will be the high bidder in the "fire sale" for the NY Times.

Who cares?
The majority of Americans don't even read news papers anymore, let alone the wall street lournal.
Thanks to the internet people are starting to wake up to the fact that the corporate news media is a propaganda machine.

the corporate news media is a propaganda machine.

Posted by JeffnDenmark at 2007-08-01 03:38 AM | Reply

Is there anything in the entire FUCKING WORLD that is not a conspiracy to you?

Cancelled my subscription. The dumbing down of the WSJ has begun. Oooopppss I mean "mainstreaming" of the WSJ has begun.

Murdoch is a tool of the RNC and will turn the WSJ into another propaganda machine for the neocons.

Murdoch a tool for the RNC? Is that why he is supporting Hillary for president? Not really a 'tool', when he isn't even voting for the party huh??

RIP WSJ.

Done deal. This must terrify the NY Times.

This greatly enhances their media position in the entire world.


I wonder what Fox is going to do. Some ideas that have been discussed on the morning shows today include:

1) Use the WSJ's regional printing facilities to go national with the NY Post (and compete with the national NY Times) , which is one of the few newspapers that has actually increased it's circulation the past few years.

2) Expand the already highly respected WSJ news desk, expand the Journal's hard news coverage, and directly challenge the NY Times as the "paper of record".

3) Aggresively promote the WSJ/DOW JOnes connection to make the launch of the FOX BUsiness Channel a formidable competitor from the get go.

I feel like Tiffany's just got bought out by WalMart.

""Expand the already highly respected WSJ news desk, expand the Journal's hard news coverage, and directly challenge the NY Times as the "paper of record".""

Like their fair and balanced news channel.
Only morons would ever believe anything that any Murdoch publication says.

Bowa, do you have a subscription to the WSJ online? If yes, go to the feed back section and look at the number of people who are cancelling their subcriptions. The NYT and the FT have nothing to worry about. I suspect they will gain readers from this.

Aggresively promote the WSJ/DOW JOnes connection to make the launch of the FOX BUsiness Channel a formidable competitor from the get go.


Well he is going to have to pay out of the nose to get out of the agreement the WSJ already has with CNBC.

Murdoch a tool for the RNC? Is that why he is supporting Hillary for president? Not really a 'tool', when he isn't even voting for the party huh??

Posted by FormerLib at 2007-08-01 08:32 AM | Reply

Hillary is not a liberal democrat. Republicant lite is more like it.

Yes, Murdoch is a tool for the RNC.

Jimmy, Please. Do you actually think Billary is not a liberal democrat?

I don't think you are even that dumb.....cmon!

Hillary is not a liberal democrat.

She proposes liberal ideas and agendas to get elected, but when push comes to shove she is a mouthpiece for industry in office.

I resent her positions on immigration, outsourcing, etc.

What she says is 180 degress from what she does. She is a liar and thief just like the current occupants of the white house. A vote for her is a vote for the status quo.

All the candidates refuse to tackle the tough issues that are facing America and will instead spew the same tired rhetoric that makes them the same as the candidates of either party.

Murdoch sees her for the slime she is and that is why he contributes to her. She is a tool of Corporate America just like her husband, the only real difference between their agenda and the rights is that they beleive in balanced budgets.

"Hillary is not a liberal democrat. Republicant lite is more like it."


She usually is prior to any election. Lord knows she couldn't win if she showed a glimpse of her Liberal heart.

The people who get the WSJ as a hobby, or to impress their friends, would be somewhat inclined to cancel their subscriptions if said friends are also pretentious liberals. But the idea that the FT or any other publication has the depth of business, tax, regulatory, and regional news is just stupid. Right NOW the WSJ is the most conservative publication in America--and that hasn't seemed to bother any of the liberals so far.

The people who need the WSJ to do their business well will keep their subscriptions. Those who do not, might not.

Well said Jimmy,
But I 'label' her for her ideas and agendas. What she spews out of her word hole is liberal. So thats what I call her.

RIR,
The WSJ 'editorial' is conservative. I can't see how you can label the whole paper conservative at all. Yes, I subscribe.

But the idea that the FT or any other publication has the depth of business, tax, regulatory, and regional news is just stupid.

I have subscribed to both and have found they cover the same stories, but the FT is more global.

If you think that the WSJ isn't going to change then you are sorely mistaken.

Moreover, RiR, I subscribed to the WSJ because I could trust everything I read in the paper. With Murdoch at the helm I can't say that anymore; just as I can say that I don't trust everything I read in the NYT. So, based with the option of reading a liberal slanted paper I can't trust, the NYT, or a conservative slanted paper I can't trust then I will go with none of the above and stick with the FT.

Does anyone really think that Murdoch will stomach investigative reporting that the WSJ is known for if it is contrary to his interest? What about reporting that damages people Murdoch is doing business with? Do you think we will see another series addressing poverty in the US under Murdoch's control? What investigative reporting as to back dating stocks?

Does anyone really think that Murdoch will stomach investigative reporting that the WSJ is known for if it is contrary to his interest? What about reporting that damages people Murdoch is doing business with? Do you think we will see another series addressing poverty in the US under Murdoch's control? What investigative reporting as to back dating stocks?

Posted by taxman


Fair questions, Tax.

I guess time will ultimately tell.

My guess is 'yes' to all of those questions. Murdoch is in business to make money. I doubt he'd risk alienating his customers and, in the process, open the door for a new competitor, in order to serve an ideological end.

My guess is 'yes' to all of those questions. Murdoch is in business to make money.

History would contradict you, and Murdoch isn't in it for money, he is in it for the power - see William Randolph Hearst.

"And to think you and your little friends want this government to take over and manage all your personal/private correspondence and you're banking records under the guise of security"


YEAH!

And the wingdings rejoice! No surprise there, they have proven incapable of seeing the big picture!

See, as previously stated by "conservative" geniuses like eberly ------ rich people hedge their bets and protect their loins in times of transition (money/power).
In essence it's a way of easily justifying the ideology of "Anything for Buck/power" over everything else (like real principle).

So with that said, there is no guarantee that Murdock doesn't see the writing on the wall (a new thousand year single party rule so to speak) and that he wont protect his own interests by siding with "liberals" should they gain full possession of the megaphone.

However, when it does happen (and it's a given) I suspect all the Fake Plastic Sons of Bitchs here, singing their song of approval right now, will promptly and without mercy ------ blame someone else for it all!

Right NOW the WSJ is the most conservative publication in America--and that hasn't seemed to bother any of the liberals so far.

Posted by rightisright at 2007-08-01 10:31 AM | Reply

You seem to confuse the editorial section of the paper with the investigative/news section.

I agree with Tax, Murdoch is in it for power. If any story is going to paint his business interest or one of his friends in a bad light he will pull the story.

After seeing how Fux News works, he will dumb down the WSJ to the point of irrelevance.

I agree with Tax, Murdoch is in it for power. If any story is going to paint his business interest or one of his friends in a bad light he will pull the story.
* * * *

So what evidence do you have that he has done that in the past? I know that CBS has sat on stories because of a call from the White House, but don't know of any cases where Fox has.

This is one of those self-fulfilling prophecies--if you believe there is bias at Fox, but not elsewhere, then what you will see will merely confirm what you already think you know. If you can't live with yourself and a WSJ subscription, then hopefully the FT will ramp up their coverage of the US market, so that you don't miss much. Or if you're one of those who subscribes just to impress people, then it doesn't really matter anyhow. But I'll say again--no serious reader of American business can pretend that the FT can compare to the WSJ. Sorry. If you want coverage of the London or European bourses, then the FT is superior, barely. But in the US--no way.

One needs to look no further than the non-coverage of current news stories at Fux to confirm this.

The mainstream media and CNN, MSNBC will be covering a breaking story that paints the current occupants of the whitehouse in a bad light and what will Fux cover? Killer pythons in the everglades.

What is great is that the WSJ editorial page has two pieces basically begging readers to stick with the paper and that the editors will try their hardest to maintain the same standard.

If you can't live with yourself and a WSJ subscription, then hopefully the FT will ramp up their coverage of the US market, so that you don't miss much. Or if you're one of those who subscribes just to impress people, then it doesn't really matter anyhow.

What about those of us who subscribed because we wanted an independent view on business, economy and politics?

I just wonder why anyone would support further media consolidation under fewer and fewer owners.
Whether or not Murdoch will "Foxize" the WSJ is only one aspect of the problem, the fact is we are allowing our media to be owned and controlled by a very small number of people who all seem to have similar views. I am sure that what they consider beneficial to their own interests is probably not what is beneficial to individual citizens who aren't as wealthy and powerful. It is dangerous for a democracy to allow so much of its information to be controlled by so few people, with their own agendas which are probably not good for the average American.
Not too much we can do about it until we get a Congress with more guts than this one though. I am amazed every day at just how weak the people we elected have turned out to be. Nancy Pelosi should resign as Speaker and Harry Reid should let someone else lead the Dems in the Senate.

"the people we elected"


I admit voting for Ann Richards and Ron Paul.

No one else I've ever voted for got elected.

What about those of us who subscribed because we wanted an independent view on business, economy and politics?

Basically, yer hooped.

Be Well.

PS: Spud calls him 'Rupert the Unbearable', btw.

Be Well.

"No one else I've ever voted for got elected."

What does that tell ya'?

Interesting dilemma Murdoch has put himself in. Most thinking people understand that FOX News is biased toward the right (as the NYT is slanted toward the left). But the WSJ, aside from its conservative editorial page, has always been quite honest and frank about it business coverage. If this changes with time, the paper will have been "dumbed down".

Considering most of its readership is not all that gullable, I suspect that they may lose quite a bit of subscribers should the paper begin to lose quality or show bias.

BTW, whoever said that the WSJ is the mainstay news source of brokerage firms... Its actually considered a dinosaur. We get ONE copy per day... and its free... and no one reads it.

In actuality, we look to various sources for news info... Yahoo Finance, Bloomberg, etc..

YEAH!

Slidin' into first with your pants about to burst. diarrhea, mush mush, diarrhea.

Comin' around second and you only got a second diarrhea, mush mush, diarrhea

Slidin' into third and you just let a turd, diarrhea, mush mush, diarrhea.

Slidin' into home and your pants are full of foam, diarrhea, mush mush, diarrhea.

""Interesting dilemma Murdoch has put himself in. Most thinking people understand that FOX News is biased toward the right (as the NYT is slanted toward the left). But the WSJ, aside from its conservative editorial page, has always been quite honest and frank about it business coverage. If this changes with time, the paper will have been "dumbed down".

Considering most of its readership is not all that gullable, I suspect that they may lose quite a bit of subscribers should the paper begin to lose quality or show bias.""

Let me see here. Am I or are WE to believe that CNN, NBC, CBS and all the others are NOT BIASED to the left or is it just those papers and networks who are biased to the RIGHT that are wrong??? Give me a break here people. If you for one moment think that the Journal does not have editorials biased to the right more than to the left right now then you have been smoking wacko weed.

Murdoch is NOT, hear me NOT, going to put this or any other paper he now owns in a place where it loses value and that goes for the Journal. Why do you think he has so much wealth, because he is stupid??? Or could it be he is smarter than the average LEFT winger who wants ALL media to be all the WAY left of center???

I hope he buys out CNN and demands it be more like Fox. And, by the way, has anybody noticed how CNN and the others, especially CNBC are all of a sudden following the FOX format? Wake up people.

What I hope for is that one day in the not so distant future Murdoch will be the high bidder in the "fire sale" for the NY Times.

Posted by Bowa at 2007-07-31 09:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Translation:

I hope there can never be a dissenting view on any republican. I hope that someday everyone has to think like me because. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

No one else I've ever voted for got elected.

Zat, I suspect that is probably a good thing

No one else I've ever voted for got elected.

Zat, I suspect that is probably a good thing

"No one else I've ever voted for got elected.

Zat, I suspect that is probably a good thing"

Posted by Bowa

Yeah
I didn't vote for some Yalie frat boy;
Or Clinton, or Bush, or Reagan, or Carter, or Nixon.

We keep shooting ourselves in the foot.

This man was responsible for the FOX new network whose daily mis-information has shaped this country for sometime. A majority of those who listen take these assertations as truth. We are not a perceptive people.

How do we justify putting financial infomation of the entire investment policy in this man's hands?

This man was responsible for the FOX new network whose daily mis-information has shaped this country for sometime

I think the daily misinformation of ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and MSNBC has shaped this country for far longer and the size of thei combined audience dwarfs that of FOX.

Fox has about 2 million viewers a night, the stations BOWA lists have 10x viewership.

Foxnews shaping our country...get real...