Subscribe

Resources

« Congress to Close Stock-Option Tax Loophole? | Main | WSJ Reporters Praying Burkle Will Save Them. And How About Google or Yahoo? »

June 05, 2007

Comments

peter Kennedy

Actually the Economist has a similar set up to protect aginst the ownership interests of the Financial Times, and it has worked well. The only reason that Murdoch said 'NFW' is that he does interfere in his papers editorial policy. So goodbye WSJ editorial independence!

peter Kennedy

Actually the Economist has a similar set up to protect aginst the ownership interests of the Financial Times, and it has worked well. The only reason that Murdoch said 'NFW' is that he does interfere in his papers editorial policy. So goodbye WSJ editorial independence!

Henry Blodget

Peter, thanks for thoughtful note. Does the Economist/FT arrangement allow the prior owner to select the board (at least initially)? This strikes me as being similar to a prior owner of a house having control over the future paint colors, renovations, etc.

If Murdoch meddles with the Journal in a way that makes it worse (the WSJ is rarely accused of not having a clear point of view), the paper's reputation (and, perhaps, business) will suffer. I understand the concern that there will effectively be daily line editing, but the idea that a paper's owners have no control over coverage, direction, etc., seems a bit dreamy.

Rich

After Paul Gigot's ridiculous comments on legalizing the illegal invasion of our borders, perhaps Rupert's interference in WSJ editorial comment might make cents.

Account Deleted

thanks admin good post

sohbet-askalemi
-edencity

Account Deleted

thanks admin good post
Temizlik şirketleri Temizlik şirketleri Sohbet Sohbet odaları

Account Deleted

En güncel videoları sexfilmiseyrette bulabilirsin.denemelisin.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Sponsors