Rupert Murdoch is buying more than the news

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Before you know it, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation is going to own the news, and we don't hear a peep from the press, or the mainstream media.

In his bid to buy Dow Jones for $5 billion, last week, the Australian-born owner of Fox News, Harper Collins, the New York Post, and The Times of London offered an unprecedented $60 a share for the company's remaining stock options, and nobody blinked, except members of the Bancroft family, owners of the Wall Street Journal, and controlling stockholders of Dow Jones. But, insiders say, that for $10 a share more, the Bancrofts, too, may be willing to give it up for Rupert Murdoch.

Not only is no one in the mainstream media speaking out against the proposed takeover, but some even suggest it might not be a bad idea for this master at corporate monopoly to have his way with Dow Jones, and the Journal, arguing that, if a bit disfigured, the news will survive. After all, salmonella kills people, not sensationalism. And, if anybody's squawking, it must be behind closed doors where only family members can hear.

Where is outrage at the thought that, sooner rather than later, the Wall Street Journal will look just like the New York Post, and Fox News? Where is the angst not merely from the public, but from the press corps that a company called News Corp. can buy and sell what we read?

No one is asking what will happen to dissent, and a free press when big business and big news merge. Corporate profit, which has consumed the heart and soul of America, as well as the middle class, now looks to devour the information age like a bowl of sushi.

If he prevails, and acquires Dow Jones, Mr. Murdoch will lay claim to the second largest paper in the country, and the lion's share of newspaper profit. And, Rupert Murdoch will, once again, get to demonstrate his unfailing ability to flex, censor, and sway his way to the top.

But, allowing for inflation, the $60 million question is, while he's had his eye on the Wall Street Journal for many years, why is the Fox News owner so hot for the Journal now, this close to a crucial presidential race? Having watched the Murdoch muscle at work, over the past decade or so, a pattern emerges, one that is as transparent as it is trans-fat.

Arguably, only a shark has a better sense of smell than Rupert Murdoch. He already has The Times of London in his pocket, and has expressed more than a passing interest in that paper's leading competitor, The Financial Times, showing not merely how much he wants to be the big fish, but that he can ably breakfast, lunch, and dine on his competition. So, it's not too big a stretch to think that, having had his fill of Dow and the Journal, Mr. M. may have a craving for USA Today, the only paper with a larger circulation than the Wall Street Journal.

http://alternet.org/module/printversion/51664/?type=blog

[Mirorgate 0]

Before you know it, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation is going to own the news, and we don't hear a peep from the press, or the mainstream media.

In his bid to buy Dow Jones for $5 billion, last week, the Australian-born owner of Fox News, Harper Collins, the New York Post, and The Times of London offered an unprecedented $60 a share for the company's remaining stock options, and nobody blinked, except members of the Bancroft family, owners of the Wall Street Journal, and controlling stockholders of Dow Jones. But, insiders say, that for $10 a share more, the Bancrofts, too, may be willing to give it up for Rupert Murdoch.

Not only is no one in the mainstream media speaking out against the proposed takeover, but some even suggest it might not be a bad idea for this master at corporate monopoly to have his way with Dow Jones, and the Journal, arguing that, if a bit disfigured, the news will survive. After all, salmonella kills people, not sensationalism. And, if anybody's squawking, it must be behind closed doors where only family members can hear.

Where is outrage at the thought that, sooner rather than later, the Wall Street Journal will look just like the New York Post, and Fox News? Where is the angst not merely from the public, but from the press corps that a company called News Corp. can buy and sell what we read?

No one is asking what will happen to dissent, and a free press when big business and big news merge. Corporate profit, which has consumed the heart and soul of America, as well as the middle class, now looks to devour the information age like a bowl of sushi.

If he prevails, and acquires Dow Jones, Mr. Murdoch will lay claim to the second largest paper in the country, and the lion's share of newspaper profit. And, Rupert Murdoch will, once again, get to demonstrate his unfailing ability to flex, censor, and sway his way to the top.

But, allowing for inflation, the $60 million question is, while he's had his eye on the Wall Street Journal for many years, why is the Fox News owner so hot for the Journal now, this close to a crucial presidential race? Having watched the Murdoch muscle at work, over the past decade or so, a pattern emerges, one that is as transparent as it is trans-fat.

Arguably, only a shark has a better sense of smell than Rupert Murdoch. He already has The Times of London in his pocket, and has expressed more than a passing interest in that paper's leading competitor, The Financial Times, showing not merely how much he wants to be the big fish, but that he can ably breakfast, lunch, and dine on his competition. So, it's not too big a stretch to think that, having had his fill of Dow and the Journal, Mr. M. may have a craving for USA Today, the only paper with a larger circulation than the Wall Street Journal.

http://alternet.org/module/printversion/51664/?type=blog

Wasn't this a James Bond movie??

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Speaking of Murdoch owned companies - does anyone know that MySpace actually owns any content you choose to upload to it? Its in the User Agreement.

That's a bit of a ####### for anyone who does any kind of creative work...

[Alex+R 0]

This article is a bit behind the times. BTW, I hear outrage on NPR and outrage from industry publications. But everyone knows most newspapers are tools of corporate interests. You should see what they're doing in Minnesota right now. A company bought the Minneapolis paper and is firing everyone right and left to save money, but making decisions that only a company with no experience in news could make. It's awful.

Speaking of Murdoch owned companies - does anyone know that MySpace actually owns any content you choose to upload to it? Its in the User Agreement.

That's a bit of a ####### for anyone who does any kind of creative work...

MySpace is evil. I don't know why young people have decided to make that the place to put their new creative work out there.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

MySpace is evil. I don't know why young people have decided to make that the place to put their new creative work out there.

Considering how popular it is you've got to wonder. But its pretty evil to assume ownership rights of other people's work just because they're using a free service that makes its money from advertising and marketing.

[Nikita2Charles 33]

I hope the Bancroft Family don't sell their soul for the money and keep ownership of the Dow Jones. With the Bank Major STOCK OPTIONS SCANDAL, that piece of work was discovered by wall street Journal, LET SAY this findings was discovered by one of their paper will that information ever MADE IT out to the public is a big question?

[Portlander 0]

That EULA won't hold water in a court of law. Even iron contracts that are misleading won't wold water if there is malicious intent, which, claiming rights to someone else'####### song would be.

Rupert Murdoch is evil. He is quoted as saying "I think authoritarian regimes can work" in re: mainland China. But, at this point, anyone who thinks that FOX News is really news is going to agree with that.

One one hand, it is absolutely astounding to me that nobody in the mainstream press is talking about this. On the other hand, they didn't talk about dozens of other things in the last couple of years either, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. The major outlets really aren't that much better that FOX. Consorship is alive and well in coporate press rooms.

Really. Compare them to much of the international media and the difference is absolutely astounding.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That EULA won't hold water in a court of law. Even iron contracts that are misleading won't wold water if there is malicious intent, which, claiming rights to someone else'####### song would be.

Rupert Murdoch is evil. He is quoted as saying "I think authoritarian regimes can work" in re: mainland China. But, at this point, anyone who thinks that FOX News is really news is going to agree with that.

One one hand, it is absolutely astounding to me that nobody in the mainstream press is talking about this. On the other hand, they didn't talk about dozens of other things in the last couple of years either, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. The major outlets really aren't that much better that FOX. Consorship is alive and well in coporate press rooms.

Really. Compare them to much of the international media and the difference is absolutely astounding.

Well said.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That EULA won't hold water in a court of law. Even iron contracts that are misleading won't wold water if there is malicious intent, which, claiming rights to someone else'####### song would be.

That would certainly apply to professional artists/musicians with the backing of a agent or publisher who owns the rights to their material. Most of the people who use Myspace aren't professional musicians/writers/artists and whatever and have next to no legal protections on their copyright. After all, suing someone for copyright infringement is usually the privilege of those with the most money.

I'm talking about a writer who tries to sell a 5000 word short story to a magazine for $200 (approximately the going rate), but the magazine won't touch it with a 10 foot pole because of a potential contractual issue attached to it due to its apppearing on Myspace(however unenforceable it may be). They certainly won't stand up for the author's rights - that's generally upon the author to do - that might be fine for say Stephen King or Michael Crichton but is out of the realm of possibility for say, a person who writes mostly in their spare time, and doesn't have a published track record.

BTW - this happens all the time to writers, not just on Myspace - but with unscrupulous publishers who try to cheat you out of your royalties. One friend of mine from a few years back writes feature articles freelance - and had to harrass the company by showing up at their offices every day demanding his money. They published his article without paying him the 800 quid they owed him for it. Nice eh?

Edited May 10, 2007 by erekose

[Robor007 0]

This article is a bit behind the times. BTW, I hear outrage on NPR and outrage from industry publications. But everyone knows most newspapers are tools of corporate interests. You should see what they're doing in Minnesota right now. A company bought the Minneapolis paper and is firing everyone right and left to save money, but making decisions that only a company with no experience in news could make. It's awful.

Speaking of Murdoch owned companies - does anyone know that MySpace actually owns any content you choose to upload to it? Its in the User Agreement.

That's a bit of a ####### for anyone who does any kind of creative work...

MySpace is evil. I don't know why young people have decided to make that the place to put their new creative work out there.

Definitely one of the worst things to ever happen to the 'net.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its ironic that publishers are so gung-ho about copyright infringement and the "theft" of intellectual property rights (though still not exactly sure how a person 'steals a copyright'. Its been going on for years - and is a constant problem for musicians, writers and other artists trying to break into their respective industries.

As usual - noone much cares about the "little guy".

[sereia 0]

hehe i like myspace. i've found friends there i haven't seen in YEARS and YEARS!

[Portlander 0]

This is true in all research applications as well. I have a friend who had the rights to "I Just Called to Say I love You" stolen from him. That song made more money for Stevie Wonder than the rest of his catalog put together. One of my Dad's students invented a new way to imprint a computer chip (a 16 y/o girl) as part of an internship program - the whole idea was hers over her mentor's objections, but it worked great and Intel stole the patent once it was working.

I don't see this is a myspace problem per se so much as it is an honesty and money problem