Oh a king. Sorry my bad.

Weiss is strangely silent about Salon's own embarrassing IPO. There was a time when you could buy SALN stock on NASDAQ. I guess the only thing keeping the likes of Murdoch from buying Salon outright in the OTC market with some forgotten pocket change is the stock's illiquidity and the Salon corporation's perpetual lack of revenue.

From the "Duh" department:

The Dark Star wants this news organization precisely because it speaks the truth in its news pages. Think about the us-vs.-them mentality that Murdoch and his neo-nutbags will

play up if the news in the WSJ suddenly mirrors that of his "Faux News." It will put a clear dividing line between those who subscribe to the "liberal" NYT. You're either fir us or agin us.

Sad, really. The WSJ's reporting is second to none, although their editorial pages have always contained the assorted well-respected, right-wing oddballs. Now, they'll have the run of the place.

I go back to work at my job at a locally owned, family -based newspaper chain with a heavy heart and optimism that there is a better way - and i hope i find myself there soon.

While I totally welcome the discussion of media ownership and how awful our mainstream media has become, I don't think the public/private distinction is what matters. Private companies have shares, P/E's, and the same motivations. The only difference is pubic companies are more widely owned by more shareholders. There are huge private companies in this country that I wish were public (think oil companies, huge donors) so we could know more about them. My MAIN point is that media needs to be INDEPENDENT of holding company influence AND mass ownership influence. Take 60 minutes for example. Who rules that roost today? Not the editor, not even CBS, but Viacom, a huge holding company. They can put a hit on a story. NBC/GE and on you go. It is this lack of 'independence from', not 'owned by' that neccessarily makes the difference. There are both liberal and conservative journals that are independent, and better for it. If they were independent and a small public company, that would make no difference. Public and private companies are equally under threat for influence. Everyone has their price, including the private owner. We need to keep our eye on mass-onwership of media properties (like Murdoch), but also the horizontal influence of large corporations, like Viacom, GE, and Disney. I'd rather Murdoch owned 20 newspapers than Ratheon owning ONE TV network.

The WSJ operates a printing plant on Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park California. The plant is at prime location in one of the most expensive business spots in the country.

A printing plant should be at a lower-rent location. This is just the sort of 'inefficiency' that Murdoch looks for in selecting his acquisitions.

Murdoch wants to own MySpace.com (the eyes and ears of 20 million tweens) and nobody blinks an eye. He wants to buy the Journal (The eyes and ears of 20,000 stuffed shirts) and suddenly the sky is falling. The solution...Less shareholder rights.

Did Murdoch already buy Salon.com?

The Wall Street Joural editorial page will probably be moderated by Murdock's influence. When he took over myspace, now that was scary.

The wall street journal editorial page is so extreme, I think Murdock will have a moderating influence on it. Now when Murdock took over myspace, that was truly scary.

The newspaper business is becoming less profitable. Isn't this a fact of life?

Weiss manages to make his way through the entire article without ever touching on the competitive pressure that other media bring to bear on newspapers. Instead, he makes a silly case. Because there is nothing special about this business in this regard. Public ownership is no harder on a newspaper than it is on any other business of similar economics.

It's all common sense. It doesn't require a thousand words to state the obvious. If a business wants to spend money without making money, they'd better have an owner who's willing to take the loss.

What should happen here is that Murdoch shouldn't be allowed to buy another newspaper. His purchase will have to go through the anti-trust devision of the Justice Department. Right now, there is no hope of it being stopped. But if every Democratic candidate was to annouce that if they are elected, Murdoch's monopolizing purchase will be stopped cold, it would cool his jets a bit.

I just want to point out that the Dow Jones corporation is a closely held corporation that's more than 60% owned by one family. Seemingly the private nature of its holdings have no effect on this issue.

So what if Murdoch snags the WSJ? So what if he cans the news division, and lets the reactionary editorial page rule the roost?

What all those laid off good reporters should do is start their own online newspage, or go to other publications. If they're good reporters, they can go someplace where good journalism is valued (good luck finding it in the US, sadly), and if they can't find it, they should start their own, taking advantage of the low operating costs of an online enterprise. And if they do good stuff, so much the better -- people will pay attention, they'll get readers. That's how it should be, anyway: good writing and reporting draws readers.

Let Murdoch turn WSJ into a tabloid -- circulation will wither and die. That seems to happen to every paper that guts content in favor of glitz, anyway. Contrary to the conventional wisdom thrown out, people do value good content.

Right now, the WSJ editorial page is like the poison pellet wrapped in the bread of the good reporting -- they benefit from that good reporting; take that good journalism away, and they're left exposed and seen for what they are.

But the good journalists, unlike the partisan hacks in the WSJ editorial department, will find a place to go.

I was stupefied when I read how in an ideal world, newspapers would no longer have to be subject to the whims of their shareholders. Such a situation existed once upon a time-in the former Soviet Union and curiously enough, even now, in the UK. And from personal experience, I can assure you that the BBC is only marginally better than the Pravada in terms of bang for the tax payers buck.

The question however is how come an ostensibly capitalist country like the US has its share of malcontents who'd like to roll back the march of the free market. I mean, this is the same country that gave us anti-communist purges like McCarthyism-so much so that 'commie' is the second most hated epithet (next only to 'European' of course).

Pardon me while I play the devil's advocate here; but how can you seriously support the capitalist system and not encourage Murdoch in his takeover efforts? Same goes for the blue & white collar crybabies that berate the Bush administration for outsourcing jobs-aren't you the same guys that cheered when the Soviet Union was brought down this ensuring that capitalism would reign uncontested? Doesn't the fact that American companies are relocating to China and India make sense to you as an Investor? And please don't give the tired old spiel that they go there due to low wages only-Prof Becker at the U of C would tell you that firms would never hire more labor unless their marginal productivity exceeded their marginal cost-in other words the lucky star shoe factory in QingQing is not only cheap but also productive as hell. Coming back to Murdoch's efforts, do you really think any investor (including the Bancrofts) care a rodent's ass about maintaining journalistic integrity when they can double their wealth in one swoop?

C'mon guys-this is pristine capitalism at play here. In a wider context, Americans have only 2 choices-become service providers or invest in the military-industrial complex. They canot stop outsourcing, illegal immigration or even the corporatization of journalism. Peple get the governments and economic systems they deserve, get it?