Comments on: Murdoch’s WSJ Changes Creates Opening for NYT, FT

By: Barry Ritholtz

Barry Ritholtz — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:47:31 +0000

Time will tell if I am right about Murdoch — but that clearly isn’t the point.

My comment above is a response to the fan boy presumption that anyone is above analysis, review and critique based on their past track record.

Perhaps someone might do us a favor and compile a list of those people who are above criticism . . .

By: Karl K

Karl K — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 05:34:59 +0000

Barry, you were right about Bruce Sherman. Does that make you right about Rupert? That’s the same sort of “logic” that we see from folks like Trimtab — “logic” that you, rightly, lambast.

Meanwhile, let’s be perfectly I clear — I don’t “worship” Rupert. The same way I don’t worship Wilbur Ross. But there’s are reasons that individuals like that have ascended to the top of the business world.

You know, there were many out there during the launch of Fox News that pooh-poohed the whole idea. But Rupert and Roger Ailes were so much smarter than those folks, and understood where the underserved and available niches were. And they went in and grabbed them.

What I find rather amusing is the general tenor of many of these posts — you know, that because Rupert is right wing, and is of course, taking the WSJ in directions that “we don’t LIKE” that, therefore, he is going to fail.

MORE Trimtab quality logic.

Or that, amazingly, the New York Times — you know, the same company that is in the toilet because of really really stupid editorial as well as strategic decisions — is somehow going to resurrect itself because Rupert is exercising poor judgment and they can somehow fill in the gaps.

Yeah. Right. Sure.

I am sure you will let us all know when you go long the New York Times Company so we can hop on that covered wagon when you do.

By: Barry Ritholtz

Barry Ritholtz — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:58:03 +0000

This is the 2nd time I have seen this line of criticism of a critique employed by hero worshiping fan boys: "He's rich, he has a good track record, therefore . . ." The first time was when I publicly mentioned I thought Bruce Sherman's newspaper investments were wrongheaded. His acolytes came out to tell me how much he was worth, his track record, and what an idiot I was for even daring to critique what he did. I guess that makes him infallible also. OR NOT.

By: Melancholy Korean

Melancholy Korean — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 13:57:30 +0000

Sociologists call this phenomenon Prole Drift. Sure, he will “win,” wonderful. He’s a great businessman. No doubt.

I once heard someone say there’s more to life than money, but that guy must have been an idiot.

By: Karl K

Karl K — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:18:35 +0000

Awww….you mean Rupert Dupert is gonna take the WSJ and turn it into the The New York Post?

Boo hoo hoo…

There’s a reason Rupert Murdoch lives in a $25 million Manhattan apartment, and most of us don’t.

The New York Times is a dead man walking. Fox News has wiped the floor with CNN and MSNBC. And all of you can snicker all you want at Fox Business News, but let’s come back in 4 years and see where that is relative to CNBC or Bloomberg TV.

You may not like it, and you may cancel your subscriptions in a huff and turn your noses up at old Rupert, but guess what?

He’s a businessman. He knows business. And he knows how to win.

He will win here too.

By: bluestatedon

bluestatedon — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:49:07 +0000

Whether or not the NYTimes has the resources or the inclination to take advantage of what Murdoch is doing to the WSJ I can’t say, but you can bet your portfolio that the WSJ will be taking a sharp rightward swing over the summer months and especially the early fall campaign season. Murdoch, like most of the corporate business community, is not thrilled with the prospect of a Democrat in the White House working with a Democratically-controlled Congress. While I’m sure Murdoch has views that are purely ideological in nature, his real fear is a tax and regulatory environment far less favorable to him financially. He will fight tooth and nail to prevent that, and anyone who thinks the WSJ won’t become a print version of FoxNews in its political coverage and orientation is naive.

By: BayAreaGuy

BayAreaGuy — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 04:22:42 +0000

“The fear that paper might shift rightward in its news coverage is so far unfounded”

Did you ever read the WSJ editorial page? It would be very hard for it to shift any further rightward, Murdoch or no.

By: Bob A

Bob A — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:54:27 +0000

I’m just waiting for “Fair and Balanced” to appear on the masthead.

By: Melancholy Korean

Melancholy Korean — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:42:13 +0000

I remember being disappointed when the Journal first went to color. It was a much “harder” before that (well, I was in college, so maybe it was harder because I didn’t know anything). I lost respect for the paper at that moment, and each successive change to popularize the paper has meant a little more respect lost.

Working on the Street I had a sub to the Journal, but frankly, as a trader, Bloomberg was much more useful. Nowadays, out of the business, I get my market news from the blogs and BB and read the Journal when it is referenced as a link. But only if the article is free, since I don’t feel like paying. Perhaps Murdoch’s greatest triumph–taking over a great newspaper and a fine American institution–will end up being his Waterloo.

At least, one can hope.

By: Bob A

Bob A — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:02:01 +0000

I’m also reading FT instead of WSJ. Rupert Murdoch sucks.