The rich really are different. The rest of us may constantly want more, but the rich
never have quite enough.
Just ask the three dozen members of the
Bancroft clan among whom there was enough consensus to sell off the
Wall Street Journal to
satan Rupert Murdoch.
Not being a billionaire, of course it's easy for me to say. But given my druthers, I think I'd rather be stinking rich and control the second largest paper in America over being a tad richer but having to give up the family heirloom to get there. And giving to a lout like Rupert.
I guess that fuzzy-headed kind of thinking on my part is one of the many reasons I am
not loaded.
A core of the Bancrofts apparently went for Murdoch's $5 billion offer after the media mogul
sweetened the deal by saying he'd pick up the estimated $30 million cost incurred by the family having to hire so many lawyers, accountants and consultants to oversee the buy-out. It wasn't disclosed if Rupert also offered to cut their lawns and polish their croquet mallets as well.
The WSJ is a great newspaper, its editorial pages apart. But its own
report on the buyout verged on the self-satirical:
The Bancrofts worried about protecting the reputation of the Journal, the nation's second-largest newspaper. They feared Mr. Murdoch would meddle in the paper's editorial affairs and import the brand of sensationalist journalism found in some of his properties such as the New York Post. Some Bancrofts sought other buyers.
But ultimately, Mr. Murdoch's $60-a-share bid -- a 67% premium above Dow Jones's share price when it became public -- was the only serious offer on the table. Key family members, spurred by Dow Jones's board and advisers, decided they had no choice.
"On the one hand it is quite sad, but on the other it was the only reasonable thing to do," said Elisabeth Goth Chelberg, a Bancroft family member who unsuccessfully tried a decade ago to get the family more involved in management. "Now I look forward to a better Dow Jones. It's going to have more money and a world presence and all of the things that it could have and should have had but didn't."
Oh yes, no doubt. Great Father Murdoch is known for his sense of civic duty and his iron-clad support of first-rate journalism. And, meanwhile, Ms. Goth Chelberg and her cousins will have a load more of moolah. But certainly not quite enough.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, July 31st, 2007 at 9:18 pm and is filed under Main.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
July 31st, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Allow me to save all our Republican readers the effort of typing their talking points, and serve up this scintillating gem of knowledge in their stead.
Marc, by writing this post, you are a confessed purveyor of wealth envy. Repent and be saved. This is a grave sin, but there is hope for you if you accept the Health and Wealth Gospel of Jesus Christ. Name it and claim it, son. Name it and claim it.
Out demons of wealth envy!
July 31st, 2007 at 11:09 pm
As with the walking death of the LA Times, the descent of WSJ into Murdoch’s moist palms is a mixed blessing.
Suppose he does succeed in turning the paper into another NY Post. The talented journalists that make the paper will wash up elsewhere, more than a few on the Web in speciality blogs, and the world won’t necessarily be that worse off. At least we’ll be rid of the right-wing Stalinism purveyed on the editorial page, since no one who matters will read the thing anymore…
August 1st, 2007 at 5:16 am
I saw Mexicans who took a perfectly good car and junked it up with fringe, bad colors, bouncing shocks, and beads hanging from the mirror. They drove it down my street and forced me to look at it. We need to stop that!
The only difference between that and the WSJ is the amount of money involved. Maybe we should let people do what they want with things that they own.
August 1st, 2007 at 6:39 am
Marc might appreciate this:
Seized in a Coup? Tabloid Headlines for Murdoch’s Dow Jones Deal
August 1st, 2007 at 7:39 am
The concern is that Murdoch will make the news pages look like the editorial page. Hardly likely that the reverse will happen. And that should make anyone interested in good journalism, including Woody, take pause.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:38 am
Murdoch can do whatever he wants. It’s his. If he leaves a void, some other company will fill that.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:08 am
Uh huh. And if Fox news was sold to Victor Navasky, no one on the right would say a peep, would they?
August 1st, 2007 at 9:31 am
I suppose if the Bancroft clan cared about the fate of the enterprise they wouldn’t have taken it public. I couldn’t care less about the Wall Street anything.
August 1st, 2007 at 10:05 am
M. Balter: if Fox news was sold to Victor Navasky, no one on the right would say a peep, would they?
It’s his money, not like public radio that is taxpayer funded. I can gripe about that.
That reminds me of a new counterpoint. Lefties try to shut up conservatives on Iraq by saying that if we didn’t fight then we shouldn’t talk. Would it be okay for me to tell people not to discuss how tax money is spent if they don’t pay taxes? Just a thought.
August 1st, 2007 at 10:08 am
“Would it be okay for me to tell people not to discuss how tax money is spent if they don’t pay taxes? Just a thought.”
That would be fine with me. Then the rich would not have so much influence.
August 1st, 2007 at 10:54 am
Balter, think again. If people got a vote for every dollar paid in taxes, the bottom 50% of taxpayers would get 3.3% of the votes and people who pay no taxes would get no votes.
TaxProf Blog: JEC Releases Top Half of Taxpayers Pay Highest Tax Share in Decades (09/26/2006)
It has a chart showing that the top 5% paid 57% of the taxes.
August 1st, 2007 at 12:10 pm
WSJ is pretty good as newspapers go. Rupert will probably liven it up a bit, as he did the NY Post, even while saving it from closure.
The editorial page will probably continue to agree with Marc about immigration.
I doubt that Lindsay Lohan will make it above the fold on the WSJ, even with Rupert in charge.
What’s sadder is that the Weekly World News suspended publication. I’ll miss Bat Boy.
August 1st, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Hate to agree with Woody, but decide which sid you’re on. Anyone who believes in private property at all has to accept that the owners of the WSJ would have been suckers to turn down an offer that was 67% better than the going price. Shoot, I’d take a 33.5% premium on my piddly stock portfolio. The only other alternative is nationalization of the press, something even most socialists would shudder at.
Auntie>I couldn’t care less about the Wall Street anything.
Wrong. The WSJ and the business press in general is much better than the rest of the MSM. A friend of mine explained this when we were undergraduates and it has stuck with me: “regular papers can print any kind of bu11$h1t propaganda the government wants them to without being challenged. But if you’re a rich guy and you invest a million dollars in El Salvador because the WSJ said it is stable, and there is a revolution, you’re gonna be pissed, and you have the power to do something about it.”
August 1st, 2007 at 9:59 pm
the real winner here is Pearson Group. Now when business will want unbiased news on the economy and country risk they will turn to the FINANMCIAL TIMES for their news.
May 8th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
b5a45d8b9aa7…
b5a45d8b9aa72c2fa601…
October 7th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
Very interesting post, really helpful to me, I am gonna put this on my website. Thank you.
December 5th, 2010 at 11:55 am
That is in all probability the most effective article that ever cross my reference. I do not see why anybody ought to disagree. It might be too easy #for them# to comprehend…anyway good work i am coming back right here for Extra Great Stuff!!
December 12th, 2010 at 9:53 am
Nice article. Totally agree with her.