On saving the WSJ
Greg Sargent asks why Leftopia hasn't been more vocal about Rupert Murdoch's impending takeover of the Wall St. Journal. The short answer is, I can't afford to read it anyway and I think that's true for a lot of bloggers who aren't the "opinion makers" of the left. All I get to read are the Fox-style editorials and the relentlessly vapid Peggy Noonan anyway.
That said, I saw the story but the bid didn't look that serious until this latest offer. I'd agree it's probably a bad thing to have Rupert get his grubby paws on the paper. Even with my limited access, I'm certain losing the independence of the journalism side of the paper would be a loss and Rupert already controls too much of the information chain in general.
On the other hand, there's some part of me that sees it a chance to shut down the power of an editorial page and it's right wing zombie columnists. If Murdoch does succeed, it will certainly turn the venerable WSJ into just another tabloid that no thinking person would take seriously anymore. I'm not absolutely certain it's not worth the tradeoff.
Still, the traditionalist in me wants the paper to keep its historic status and respectability. Civil society would be the poorer for it if the family allows money to trump their legacy. I'm trusting their money is old enough that they won't allow a tacky usurper like Murdoch to ruin their name.
That said, I saw the story but the bid didn't look that serious until this latest offer. I'd agree it's probably a bad thing to have Rupert get his grubby paws on the paper. Even with my limited access, I'm certain losing the independence of the journalism side of the paper would be a loss and Rupert already controls too much of the information chain in general.
On the other hand, there's some part of me that sees it a chance to shut down the power of an editorial page and it's right wing zombie columnists. If Murdoch does succeed, it will certainly turn the venerable WSJ into just another tabloid that no thinking person would take seriously anymore. I'm not absolutely certain it's not worth the tradeoff.
Still, the traditionalist in me wants the paper to keep its historic status and respectability. Civil society would be the poorer for it if the family allows money to trump their legacy. I'm trusting their money is old enough that they won't allow a tacky usurper like Murdoch to ruin their name.
posted by Libby Spencer at 7:54 PM
8 Comments:
the WSJ editorial page is a neo con hall hole anyway. opinionjournal.com is simply the fundraising wing. and of course, a good way to turn people off of the idea of globalization and free markets.
Maybe, but I don't think there's anything Murdoch can't further degrade.
I'm with you Fogg. In the end, I hope they keep it out of Murdoch's clutches.
If Fox is any example, he's not content to mandate editorial positions, but likes to simply make things up or twist them beyond recognition.
It's sad that the FCC has become another mouthpiece for the monopolists and continues to push to allow fewer and fewer entities to own and control all the news.
The FCC definitely needs an overhaul and the conglomerates need to be broken up again.
ehh. I say let the markets do their work. Eventually people are going to get sick of the murdoch touch. look at microsoft. they were getting sued in europe for being too huge, now the other browsers are knocking it out via user choice.
Like I said Lester, I'm a traditionalist. I have no great love for the WSJ but I would hate to see it destroyed nonetheless.
I'm an anarchist
Post a Comment
<< Home