<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Murdoch makes the move</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/05/01/murdoch-makes-the-move/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/05/01/murdoch-makes-the-move/</link>
	<description>by Jeff Jarvis</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:43:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Bob Jacobson</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/05/01/murdoch-makes-the-move/#comment-349195</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Jacobson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2007 18:58:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/05/01/murdoch-makes-the-move/#comment-349195</guid>
		<description>If Murdoch were to succeed in acquiring Dow Jones and the WSJ, and then allying it with his financial TV ambitions -- a good guess -- the result probably would be as thoroughly unsuccessful as MSNBC, dull with a newsy rather than a technology twist.  It&#039;s difficult to think of a publishing-TV hookup that has performed in any other than a mediocre fashion.  National Geographic?  The Discovery Channel, going the other way (TV to journalism)?  Playboy?  Each one is an also-ran in the field that it tried to colonize from its more established base.  And no, Rupert is not a miracle worker.  &quot;Just give it time&quot; won&#039;t work this time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If Murdoch were to succeed in acquiring Dow Jones and the WSJ, and then allying it with his financial TV ambitions &#8212; a good guess &#8212; the result probably would be as thoroughly unsuccessful as MSNBC, dull with a newsy rather than a technology twist.  It&#8217;s difficult to think of a publishing-TV hookup that has performed in any other than a mediocre fashion.  National Geographic?  The Discovery Channel, going the other way (TV to journalism)?  Playboy?  Each one is an also-ran in the field that it tried to colonize from its more established base.  And no, Rupert is not a miracle worker.  &#8220;Just give it time&#8221; won&#8217;t work this time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Participate Media &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Today, May 2, on BuzzTracker</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/05/01/murdoch-makes-the-move/#comment-349187</link>
		<dc:creator>Participate Media &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Today, May 2, on BuzzTracker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2007 15:29:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/05/01/murdoch-makes-the-move/#comment-349187</guid>
		<description>[...] Jeff Jarvis of BuzzMachine says this move gives Murdoch several new options. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Jeff Jarvis of BuzzMachine says this move gives Murdoch several new options. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: R Rainey</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/05/01/murdoch-makes-the-move/#comment-349178</link>
		<dc:creator>R Rainey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2007 13:43:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/05/01/murdoch-makes-the-move/#comment-349178</guid>
		<description>Jeff, please tell reporters covering stories about media takeovers to ease up on the whining about employee treatment and editorial control.  It shows their incredible self-centeredness.  Readers don&#039;t care about those things and want to understand it as a business deal, like any other takeover.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jeff, please tell reporters covering stories about media takeovers to ease up on the whining about employee treatment and editorial control.  It shows their incredible self-centeredness.  Readers don&#8217;t care about those things and want to understand it as a business deal, like any other takeover.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill K.</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/05/01/murdoch-makes-the-move/#comment-349158</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill K.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2007 04:40:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/05/01/murdoch-makes-the-move/#comment-349158</guid>
		<description>From the AP , which gives a different voting stock percentage that the Bancroft family holds:

&quot;However, Dow Jones said late Tuesday that the Bancroft family, the company&#039;s controlling shareholders, said they would vote shares representing just over 50 percent of the company&#039;s voting power against the deal.&quot;

Some cynics are saying that they&#039;re just trying to bid up the price.

There&#039;s also union opposition:

&quot;The union representing Dow Jones employees, the Independent Association of Publishers&#039; Employees, was harshly critical of the prospect of being owned by Murdoch and issued a statement saying that the bid was opposed by the staff &#039;from top to bottom.&#039;&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From the AP , which gives a different voting stock percentage that the Bancroft family holds:</p>
<p>&#8220;However, Dow Jones said late Tuesday that the Bancroft family, the company&#8217;s controlling shareholders, said they would vote shares representing just over 50 percent of the company&#8217;s voting power against the deal.&#8221;</p>
<p>Some cynics are saying that they&#8217;re just trying to bid up the price.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s also union opposition:</p>
<p>&#8220;The union representing Dow Jones employees, the Independent Association of Publishers&#8217; Employees, was harshly critical of the prospect of being owned by Murdoch and issued a statement saying that the bid was opposed by the staff &#8216;from top to bottom.&#8217;&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill K.</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/05/01/murdoch-makes-the-move/#comment-349157</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill K.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2007 04:15:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/05/01/murdoch-makes-the-move/#comment-349157</guid>
		<description>Re: &quot;Unacceptable to whom?&quot;

That would be the Bancroft family who own greater than 60% of the voting stock. Charlie Rose just finished an interview with Ken Auletta that I summarized on my blog: http://tinyurl.com/338vcj

Ken has talked with the family members in the past, and they said Murdoch would be at the bottom of the list of buyers they would consider. They&#039;d prefer Bloomberg or Gannett.

Even though Murdoch is just as lustful for the NY Times (Rose quoted Murdoch: &quot;I&#039;d give up half my worth to get the NY Times.&quot;), Dow Jones is financial news which people are willing to pay for. The WSJ premium online  content can&#039;t be compared to what the NY Times is charging for: opinion pieces.

Auletta says it&#039;s all about the power and not the money for Murdoch, just as he&#039;s losing $40-50 million per year with the NY Post. With the Dow Jones purchase he&#039;s getting in on the ground floor of a business information network that can be applied to his worldwide news distribution reach.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: &#8220;Unacceptable to whom?&#8221;</p>
<p>That would be the Bancroft family who own greater than 60% of the voting stock. Charlie Rose just finished an interview with Ken Auletta that I summarized on my blog: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/338vcj" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/338vcj</a></p>
<p>Ken has talked with the family members in the past, and they said Murdoch would be at the bottom of the list of buyers they would consider. They&#8217;d prefer Bloomberg or Gannett.</p>
<p>Even though Murdoch is just as lustful for the NY Times (Rose quoted Murdoch: &#8220;I&#8217;d give up half my worth to get the NY Times.&#8221;), Dow Jones is financial news which people are willing to pay for. The WSJ premium online  content can&#8217;t be compared to what the NY Times is charging for: opinion pieces.</p>
<p>Auletta says it&#8217;s all about the power and not the money for Murdoch, just as he&#8217;s losing $40-50 million per year with the NY Post. With the Dow Jones purchase he&#8217;s getting in on the ground floor of a business information network that can be applied to his worldwide news distribution reach.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Boriss</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/05/01/murdoch-makes-the-move/#comment-349151</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Boriss</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2007 23:17:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/05/01/murdoch-makes-the-move/#comment-349151</guid>
		<description>Murdochâ€™s bid for Wall Street Journal parent Dow Jones suggests that News Corp, perhaps alone, knows where news is headed.  

See http://thefutureofnews.com/2007/05/01/murdochs-bid-for-wall-street-journal-parent-dow-jones-suggests-that-news-corp-perhaps-alone-knows-where-news-is-headed/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Murdochâ€™s bid for Wall Street Journal parent Dow Jones suggests that News Corp, perhaps alone, knows where news is headed.  </p>
<p>See <a href="http://thefutureofnews.com/2007/05/01/murdochs-bid-for-wall-street-journal-parent-dow-jones-suggests-that-news-corp-perhaps-alone-knows-where-news-is-headed/" rel="nofollow">http://thefutureofnews.com/2007/05/01/murdochs-bid-for-wall-street-journal-parent-dow-jones-suggests-that-news-corp-perhaps-alone-knows-where-news-is-headed/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Tyndall</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/05/01/murdoch-makes-the-move/#comment-349140</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Tyndall</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2007 18:39:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/05/01/murdoch-makes-the-move/#comment-349140</guid>
		<description>This offer makes more sense as a move in the cable TV business channel wars than in the newspaper wars. If Rupert Murdoch succeeds, the deal gives Fox Business Channel a brand that will trump possible negatives from its association with Fox News Channel.

Financial news consumers may be politically conservative (and therefore potentially open to FNC&#039;s ideology) but the last thing they want when receiving information about their investments is an outlet whose reputation is spin, talking points and bluster, and that is what FNC stands for.

Offering high quality journalism about serious matters where major financial assets are at stake is the reason why the WSJ has the reputation it has. The brand offers such a value that its readership is willing to pay for its online content (a feat that almost no other journalistic outlet has pulled off).

The value of reputation for these financial journalism brands is so great that, unlike many other news outlets, vertical integration across many media platforms--newspaper, online, database management, cable TV--is worth the effort.

If FBC gets WSJ, then GE may have to buy FT for CNBC to compete platform-for-platform. What should Bloomberg do? And Reuters?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This offer makes more sense as a move in the cable TV business channel wars than in the newspaper wars. If Rupert Murdoch succeeds, the deal gives Fox Business Channel a brand that will trump possible negatives from its association with Fox News Channel.</p>
<p>Financial news consumers may be politically conservative (and therefore potentially open to FNC&#8217;s ideology) but the last thing they want when receiving information about their investments is an outlet whose reputation is spin, talking points and bluster, and that is what FNC stands for.</p>
<p>Offering high quality journalism about serious matters where major financial assets are at stake is the reason why the WSJ has the reputation it has. The brand offers such a value that its readership is willing to pay for its online content (a feat that almost no other journalistic outlet has pulled off).</p>
<p>The value of reputation for these financial journalism brands is so great that, unlike many other news outlets, vertical integration across many media platforms&#8211;newspaper, online, database management, cable TV&#8211;is worth the effort.</p>
<p>If FBC gets WSJ, then GE may have to buy FT for CNBC to compete platform-for-platform. What should Bloomberg do? And Reuters?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: netZoo &#187; Archives &#187; Murdoch Bids $5 Billion for Dow Jones</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/05/01/murdoch-makes-the-move/#comment-349139</link>
		<dc:creator>netZoo &#187; Archives &#187; Murdoch Bids $5 Billion for Dow Jones</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2007 18:15:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/05/01/murdoch-makes-the-move/#comment-349139</guid>
		<description>[...] and unsolicited &#8212; are newspapers suddenly worth something again? (more to follow)&#8230;   These icons link [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] and unsolicited &#8212; are newspapers suddenly worth something again? (more to follow)&#8230;   These icons link [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Murdoch and Dow Jones at The Story</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/05/01/murdoch-makes-the-move/#comment-349134</link>
		<dc:creator>Murdoch and Dow Jones at The Story</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2007 17:41:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/05/01/murdoch-makes-the-move/#comment-349134</guid>
		<description>[...] Jeff Jarvis has more. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Jeff Jarvis has more. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

