http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/occasion18.gif
Hooray....Hooray....
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/sad1.gif

Nothing much will change, really.  Just that they'll now have Page 3 Girls...and the rest of the WSJ will mimick the editorial page!


http://business.scotsman.com/media.cfm?id=1195142007

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070731/cm_thenation/15219030

He's still after Dow-Jones!

Joke's on you...World!

Surprisingly Max...

I hate Murdoch as well.  ;D

Doesn't he also own Fox News?  Is that what we have to look for with the WSJ?  So long quality, objective journalism.

There is no one I can think of who is a better representative of the "one-party" press than Rupert Murdoch.
His control of so much of the media just turns my stomach. http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/tongue2.gif http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/09/smileydies.gif

Surprisingly Max...

I hate Murdoch as well.  ;D


I didn't have you pegged as a Murdoch fan...anybody with a brain isn't.

Yes, spaceace, Murdoch owns FOX News, the New York Post, the Times of London, and on and on under the parent company, Newscorp.  He's the one who made Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity bigshots.  He gives a constant media platform to Newt Gingrich, Oliver North, Pat Robertson....and for the "liberals," clowns such as Al Sharpton, Lanny Davis, and Jane Hall.  

Back before FOX News started, when Murdoch was earning a reputation as an aggressive media mogul for the Right, one of my journalism professors scored an interview with him.  This putz--a J-school-type leftie, of course--comes back raving about what a nice guy Rupert Murdoch is in person.  I went  off on the guy: "How do you think evil people build their evil empires? By being mean pricks to everybody?  Of course not!  They're niiiiice, they're charming, they're personable...and you walk away saying, 'Jeez, he's not such a bad guy after all!'"

Everybody I talked to who met George HW Bush in person remarked on what a "nice guy" he was.
Jack Welch of GE? Nice guy.
Al Capone?  He was sweet and charming too!

If the evil politician/big business/criminal syndicate mogul gets mad at you, you get two in the hat and you never hear it coming!
::)

There is no one I can think of who is a better representative of the "one-party" press than Rupert Murdoch.
His control of so much of the media just turns my stomach. http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/tongue2.gif http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/09/smileydies.gif

Of course, he starts with the bogus premise that the rest of the media has Che Guevara emblazoned on its masthead.  Thus, Murdoch says he wants to turn WSJ into the conservative counterpart to the New York Times.  The New York Times already has a conservative counterpart...The New York Times!
Murdoch is already starting at WSJ with an editorial page that's even more right-wing than he is.
But guess what?  Millions of people with financial interests skip right over the right-wing editorials.  They're not interested in conservative ideology.  They're interested in money.  They won't appreciate Murdoch monkeying around with the rest of the paper!
::)

Doesn't he also own Fox News?  Is that what we have to look for with the WSJ?  So long quality, objective journalism.
where does one read that nowadays? I heard complaints that he's going to inject his views and stances into the paper, but don't most newspapers do that anyways. Read the SF Chronicle and there is not much objective journalism . Pretty much the same thing daily. "this administration did this, this administration didn't do that" it grows quite tiresome.
The only thing I look for in the WSJ  are financial stock quotes and occasionally to see what major companies are doing/planning.

where does one read that nowadays? I heard complaints that he's going to inject his views and stances into the paper, but don't most newspapers do that anyways. Read the SF Chronicle and there is not much objective journalism . Pretty much the same thing daily. "this administration did this, this administration didn't do that" it grows quite tiresome.
The only thing I look for in the WSJ  are financial stock quotes and occasionally to see what major companies are doing/planning.


Our newpaper here have a wonderful system.  If you're leaving a bit to the left you get "The Lancaster Intellegencer"  if you're leaning a bit to the right you get "The Lancaster New ERA".  The first mentioned is the morning paper, the second is the evening.  It seems to be a working system.

Of course, he starts with the bogus premise that the rest of the media has Che Guevara emblazoned on its masthead.  Thus, Murdoch says he wants to turn WSJ into the conservative counterpart to the New York Times.  The New York Times already has a conservative counterpart...The New York Times!
Murdoch is already starting at WSJ with an editorial page that's even more right-wing than he is.
But guess what?  Millions of people with financial interests skip right over the right-wing editorials.  They're not interested in conservative ideology.  They're interested in money.  They won't appreciate Murdoch monkeying around with the rest of the paper!
::)


The long and short is financially conservatives aren't that interested in the "Family Values agenda".  A gay person money is just as green as anyone Else's.

That paper fell to the Wall Street conservative elite long ago. Just one more reason for me not to read it.

where does one read that nowadays? I heard complaints that he's going to inject his views and stances into the paper, but don't most newspapers do that anyways. Read the SF Chronicle and there is not much objective journalism . Pretty much the same thing daily. "this administration did this, this administration didn't do that" it grows quite tiresome.
The only thing I look for in the WSJ  are financial stock quotes and occasionally to see what major companies are doing/planning.

Murdoch's "injections" aren't "conservative," as in George F. Will, they're jaundice-yellow tabloid scandal mongering trash.  WSJ has earned this reputation for twenty years: The editorial page is right-wing, but the rest of the journalism is solidly objective.
If Murdoch's track record with newspapers tells us anything, WSJ will lose tht reputation and earn the kind of rep The New York Post has! 
There are lots of places you can get stock quotes.  "Wall Street Journal" is a name that commands respect, but this may be spoken of in past tense once Murdoch works it over!

This is the group who mis label Republicans as Democrats when it suits them.  Will they also get it wrong on stock quotes, down instead of up, up instead of down.  Think of the possibilities of predicting the performance of the stocks that you have in your hand.