Wall Street Journal Sale Is Bad for Journalism, Bad for Democracy

[Paper Trail]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Contact:
Craig Aaron, (202) 265-1490, x25

Free Press Urges Dow Jones not to Sell Out to Rupert Murdoch

WASHINGTON - In response to Thursday's announcement that the board of Dow Jones & Co. is considering selling the Wall Street Journal to Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., Free Press Executive Director Josh Silver issued the following statement:

"There are four broadcast TV networks in this country and three national newspapers: The New York Times, USA Today and the Wall Street Journal. These seven outlets are the most influential news sources in the nation. They effectively determine what's news and what's not. No single company should own two of them. Period.

"Putting the Wall Street Journal -- which always has maintained strict separation between its newsroom and the editorial page -- and Fox News under the same umbrella is bad for journalism and bad for democracy. The fact that no law currently prevents such a merger is a grave policy failure that Congress should address through changes in media ownership rules.

"In the meantime, Dow Jones and the Bancroft family must decide whether their higher priority is good journalism or greed. Once that line is crossed, there's no going back."

###

Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media, and universal access to communications.

[Rosenblum]

That attitude seems a bit antithetical to a 'free press'. More like a state controlled press. In the UK Murdoch owns Sky, The Times of London and the Sun, plus lots of other stuff. Does not seem to effect free and open debate in any way.

[Diplomat]

I didn't realize that posting press releases from advocacy groups was encouraged on here.

[Pro]

The thing I don't get is why isn't NBC/Universal making a play for the WSJ?

CNBC has a close working relationship with the WSJ, many WSJ reporters and columnists appear regularly on CNBC shows. I'm sure this would be stopped if Murdoch buys it, since Fox is planning its own business channel.

I'd think that if NBC/U wanted to strangle the new Fox biz channel in the crib, it would do what it took to hold on to CNBC's relationship with the WSJ, even if that meant buying it.

[ June 02, 2007, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: Pro ]

[Diplomat]

The WSJ has an excellent program, The Wall Street Journal Editorial Report, on Fox News Channel.

Murdoch doesn't bother me nearly as much as Lowry Mays and Pinch Sulzberger do.

[Roy Hobbs]

Ah, but the Garden Weasel makes a mulch, and that's good for your garden!

http://i.walmart.com/i/p/00/01/75/00/90/0001750090100_215X215.jpg

[2:30]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
That attitude seems a bit antithetical to a 'free press'. More like a state controlled press. In the UK Murdoch owns Sky, The Times of London and the Sun, plus lots of other stuff. Does not seem to effect free and open debate in any way.Hmmm...does this mean another company has hired a notoriously bad consultant?

And that Twink thinks open slanting is OK, as long as it's Murdoch-style is revealing, if unsurprising.

[Diplomat]

"Open-slanting?"

As I mentioned, I'm a lot more concerned about Lowry Mays and Pinch Sulzberger than I am about Rupert Murdoch. 2:30 worships at the altar of Pinch and his politically correct agenda and penchant for allowing fabricated stories and the filth of race-baiting on the Op-Ed page, so it's not surprising that she would make such asinine comments.

And when it comes to slanting anything, she/he/it is the last person who has any credibility on that topic.

[ June 03, 2007, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Diplomat ]