Oy, it's as if Shelob desired to acquire Barad-dur Industries, Inc. They're birds of a feather, they are, so it's not really a surprise. I mean, the guy owns MySpace, for Pete's sake, so why not the Wall Street Journal?

One can only wish that, Shelob-like, Murdoch's empire would grow so bloated that it would devour itself, much like his pals, the neocon ideologues are doing right now. Yea, verily, and if wishes were fishes...

With the exception of the "foaming at the mouth" conservatism on its editorial page, and lack of a sports section, the WSJ is consistently the best all-around American newspaper. They have, at times, been equally quick to praise the free-market credentials of someone like Jerry Garcia as they have of George W. Bush. Equal opportunity capitalists, if nothing else.

But I'm afraid they'll lose this 18-year subscriber if Murdoch takes the helm. AL is right that Rupert can't help but micromanage every pub he owns, and no doubt his purchase of the WSJ would be a sign that he intended to take American business journalism down the same troubling road as his other media ventures. Capitalism deserves a better advocate.

I'll also be sorry to see this happen if it does. I don't subscribe mainly because I wasn't getting through it every day when I did, but it's well-written and intelligent business and political writing. The editorial page doesn't leak into the news sections.

Thanks, FreeProton. I really can't stop laughing.

It's been a few years since my subscription expired when I dropped out of the business world, but WSJ's reporting on Enron, WorldCom, the conflict of interest inherent in the same industry providing both securities analysis and securities sales and the similar conflict of interest in big pharma designing all drug trials was top-notch and months to years ahead of the rest of the media. With Murdoch in charge, all public benefit will disappear and the news pages will be no different from the "pump and dump" spam now polluting our inboxes.

In the spirit of Glenn Greenwald's "sea change", however, we can hope that the eventual outcome of this coming melt-down will be business schools snapping out of their current cheating scandals to become the new home of securities analysis. I know I'm dreaming here, but couldn't you see individual front-line schools specializing in market sectors and providing true long-term performance metrics? The we could also have medical schools taking over design and control of drug trials, with every trial comparing the new drug to currently accepted practice in efficacy, side effects and cost.

Does this mean the long held Liberal Agenda of the Wall Street Journal will be no more?

Actually, let's pause for a moment and ask a few questions.

Question 1) is Dow Jones, Inc. currently losing money?

Question 2) is the Wall Street Journal losing money for its parent company?

Question 3) if the answer to question 1 or 2 is yes, would altering the tone of the WSJ in anyway enhance its ability to earn money for its parent.

Rupert Murdoch is (as most billionaires who are honest are) a conservative. However that brand of conservatism is largely based on a "hands off my money" libertarian conservatism (yes I know that is a contradiction in terms)that is quite populist at its core.

Fox News, and Mr. Murdoch's papers are essentially tabloid fare, meant to inspire the rage and joy of it's great unwashed reader/viewership. The Wall Street Journal is a differnt animal entirely. It's readership isn't there for good feeling, it is there for honest accurate news to aid in their investing. If Mr. Murdoch opted to transform the WSJ into a Far Right USA Today, his sales would plummet, and nothing in Mr. Murdoch's history suggests he's the kind of business man to do such a thing.

What sells is what sells, as such you can and do have the ocasional comedic set up of Fox News deriding the moral depravity of Fox Television, but in the end it's what the customers demand.

I see nothing in Mr. Murdoch's agenda aside from simple averice. His remaking of American Media to look more like European Media is simply a business model. When it ceases to make money for the man he will either change his model or become bankrupt, either way the problem solves itself.

Would we be equally fearfull if Salon Media made an offer for the WSJ? Probably, but those leftist peacenicks are crazy!

...it DOES make a huge difference. About the only useful thing to come out of the recent 'study' on 'liberal bias' in the media was the obersvation that there is a solid wall of separation between the WSJ editorial and news departments, and that the latter frequently refer to the former as fascists. And even then, the editorial page will at least occasionally attempt to offer the semblance of balance. Neither of these will last under Murdoch, rest assured.

I'll echo other readers sentiments, when i say the aside from the editorial pages the journalism in the journal is oustanding. I don't know what kind of manager murdoch is, and what kind of corparate culture he instills but I imagine it will be different from the current rulers at the Dow who are said to be paternalistic and protective of it's employees. I do not think the reign of murdoch will be so kind to the many center and left of center reporters who do the actual reporting at the Wall Street Journal.

There is your conservative biased Fox Media conglomerate.

Yes I know there is a differnce between a news outlet and an entertainment outlet, although obviously many of his detractors do not thin Mr. Murdoch understands this distinction.

Mr. Murdoch is interested in making money. Ask yourself, would you shell out the couple hundred dollars a year it costs for a Wall Street Journal subscription if it ignored the facts and ran feel good peices about the economy and Republican leadership?

WSJ is a very valuable name, does anything about Mr. Murdoch's business practices make you think he would spend a great deal of money to purchase the name then move to devalue it?

Now, granted I am sure the WSJ brand will be bandied about on Fox News, Probably using the editorial board as comentators. But that brand name is worthless if the core business does not remain the pillar of financial news that it currently is.

Sure it's possible that Murdoch might run the business in the ground on principle, but I do not know of a case in his past that would suggest such behavior. And as I said before that problem solves itself.

Mr. Murdoch is all about giving the audience what it wants even if he himself dislikes it. The audience for the WSJ isn't the audience for Fox News, so I doubt there will be much attempt at cross over.