Letters to the Editor
-
Rupert Murdoch is the Satan Incarnate of media
I don't care how much the WSJ deserves to be taken over based on its past support of takeovers. Rupert Murdoch has thoroughly demonstrated, through Fox News, that he has no interest whatsoever in objectivity or reality.
If you think the WSJ is bad now, wait until Murdoch Foxifies it.
-
I hope Dow Jones will remain independent from Murdoch's grasp.
For Murdoch, the takeover is to add another trophy to his empire. This old man's ambition is truly unlimitless. If Dow Jones remains independent, it can continue to do what it is supposed to do--providing authentic news and information for the business community as well as the mass. I have always wondered those so-called conglormats. When companies try to grow by buying out, merges, and acquisitions, I always feel eventually it becomes only a money game or number game. The profitability and the number becomes the norm not why the business should be existed in the first place. I hope Dow Jones will remain independent from Murdoch's grasp. I don't follow Murdoch so closely that I can claim I know him well, but I do disagree with how Fox handles news. As a result, I do have doubts about Murdoch's integrity as a newsman.
-
Media Centralization
I like to get my news from multiple of perspectives. No news source is without it's own perspective and bias. And it is often hard to see just what that bias is. The WSJ bias is strong but the bias is obvious and freely acknowledged. If the WSJ is absorbed into some conglomerate then the transparency of its bias will be lost. It's value to me as a news consumer will decline dramatically.
-
Rupert Murdoch and DOW/WSJ
With regard to the WSJ sale, while anyone with a modicum of sense and some familiarity with good journalism (what little is left of it in the USA) certainly symphathizes with Mr. Yount's appeals. But the board of DOW/WSJ and the Bancroft family members, among others, are not dealing with a man who really cares about honest journalism. Rupert Murdoch is, without question, simply a MEGALOMANIAC who wants to control the world's major newsmedia. He's wealth enough to buy off any newspaper he wishes and will offer exhorbitant amounts to satisfy his ego-driven desires. He "promises" early on to keep his hands off the editorial policies of his news aquisitions, but within a short time - - after concerns about his right wing and sleaze coverage leanings quiet down - - he turns around and converts the newspaper into a conservative rag or a gutter tabloid. His history speaks for itself, as exemplified by his "conversion'" of the London Times into a Margaret Thacher propaganda sheet a year after he bought it. He was likely attracted to the WSJ for the Republican Party voice of its editorial page, despite the fact that the WSJ has been one of the world's most respected news reportage journals. Murdoch won't even blink an eye at having destroyed one of the greatest newspapers anywhere, and probably thinks that he will have an easier time "converting" it to coincide with his viewes because of its already extreme right wing editorials. While Mr. Yount's assertion's are persuasive, one is puzzled at how professional people with any perspicacity can be swayed instead by Murdoch's "appealing" personality - - but, of course, an enormous monetary windfall helps. Still, one wonders what Disney fantasyland are frequented by the people who want to sell to the likes of Murdoch.
-
Mr. Yount deserves to be heard
I chose not to renew my WSJ subscription some years back, and one of the big reasons was that absolutely disgusting editorial page. The thought that my money was in some way subsidizing that constant stream of cooked up trash was enough for me to pull the plug. While I'd agree that there were some very well done and fact-based reporting in it's news reporting, at some point WSJ decided that they couldn't have one without the other. Maybe they had to keep that endless nonsense on the editorial page fearing that without it they would really lose more subscribers than the ones like me who were repulsed at WSJ for allowing it to continue.
Mr. Yount makes a compelling case regardless of whether or not some see him as one of those who was aiding and abetting the movement that is on the crest of possibly turning his workplace upside-down. Lots of us here, as independent as we might like to think of ourselves, are connected in one way or another to the corporate culture that seems to have run amok. I agree that to an extent, it's all of us who lose and not just him and those who work at WSJ. But after seeing so many I know personally that have lost plenty in the last 5 years due in part to philosophies constantly trumpeted by WSJ, I fear his plea, even if directed toward the Bancrofts, is too little, too late.
I'd be curious to know if Mr. Yount offered this to any Right Wing or pro-business sites to be read and if so, what was the consensus reaction from those readers?
-
I'm rooting for Rupert
Frankly, I would love to see the entire Media-Industrial Complex destroyed, its credibility burned to a crisp like a pile of old newspapers. Since true journalism died long ago, there is no reason not to cremate its zombie-like corpse on the bonfire of Murdoch's vanities. It will be interesting to see just how little credibility the WSJ has left after ol' Rupe starts using it to settle political scores and runs topless babe pix on page 2. As for the whining staffers, I'm sure they will have no problem finding new jobs in the age of takeovers, downsizing and media consolidation. The media barons couldn't send their jobs to Bangalore, as other corporations have done, but this is the next best thing.
-
Don't Get Fooled Again
I can't help but assume that Murdoch plans to run WSJ much in the way he's run Fox News. I haven't forgotten the Pew Research study showing that the largest number of misinformed respondents on the subject of Iraq was among the Fox News audience. My suspicion is that Murdoch plans to use the WSJ as a vehicle to boost investor confidence in China. Just remember all of the people who were largly misinformed on Iraq.