Assurances
L Gordon Crovitz, is not exactly a household name, but he is the publisher of the Wall Street Journal. In today's Opinion Journal, he assures subscribers and readers that the purchase of Dow Jones by News Corp will not change the standards of the WSJ.
In 1889, Dow and Jones launched the Journal to revolutionize markets by spreading authoritative information beyond insiders to individual investors. In the first issue, they made a pledge that stands today. "The fundamental principles in carrying out our news business are these: To get the news, to publish it instantly, whether bull or bear. No operator controls or can control our news. We are proud of the confidence reposed in our work. We mean to make it better. And we mean to have the news always honest, intelligent and unprejudiced."…….
…..Any buyer of Dow Jones knows that the foundation of value is the trust of readers in the brands and the journalism. Indeed, the first topic discussed by News Corp. Chairman and Chief Executive Rupert Murdoch with the Bancroft family in their negotiations was the importance of accurate and independent journalism. Mr. Murdoch told the Bancrofts that "any interference–or even hint of interference–would break the trust that exists between the paper and its readers, something I am unwilling to countenance. Apart from breaching the public's trust, it would simply be bad business."
The Wall Street Journal is an anomaly in today's media - the readership of both the print and online versions is growing, not shrinking. Rupert Murdoch would be insane to tamper with that. Murdoch is much more likely to change other publications to try to match the success of the WSJ. There is also an editorial in the Opinion Journal today about the sale of Dow Jones.
The Journal has had to adapt many times over the years to changing technology and reading habits. In the past five years alone, we have redesigned the U.S. Journal twice and the foreign editions once, while adding a Saturday paper and investing in online publishing. To the extent that News Corp. can provide capital for further innovation, the Journal's future as a business should be enhanced. And 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.
Yeah, there will be a lot of crocodile tears, wailing and gnashing of teeth over this. But with the financial resources of News Corp behind an actually successful newspaper, those crocodile tears from competitors may well turn to real tears as their papers lose more and more ground to the WSJ.
By Ed, Wednesday, 1 August , 2007 @ 9:05 am
I’m just wondering. As a conservative, aren’t you worried about the leading conservative News Channel, the leading conservative Newspaper and the leading (or at least a leading) conservative website (opinionjournal.com) all being controlled by a single corporate owner? I’m not speaking conspiratorially but just in terms of the ability to affect the discussion and direction of the conservative movement, doesn’t that amount of consolidation concern you?
By TC@LeatherPenguin, Wednesday, 1 August , 2007 @ 2:26 pm
As one of those WSJ subscribers, I got no worries about News Corp. messing with the operation; as you said, screwing with it would be fairly insane considering it is possibly the only news operation in recent times that has shown it’s been able to grow. Indeed, all the people and organizations sheding tears about Murdoch taking control, especially the NY Times and its (dwindling) fans, should be mighty frightened about what the WSJ will be able to do once that News Corp. dough begins to flow into their expansion plans.
As for Ed’s concerns about consolidation of thought, I’m fairly certain the average WSJ reader doesn’t spend much time watching FNC; I know I barely ever look at the channel.
And Rupert Murdoch, for all the world spun as a blazing deity of the personification of Conservative Bidnezzman, really is nothing of the sort. He’s a pragmatist; a shark who responds to whichever way the winds are blowing. If you don’t believe it, explain why he recently held a fundraiser for Hillary.