The Wall Street Tabloid

Well, I said I would address Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal at a later date, and well, now it's a later date.

Yes, I know that this isn't exactly headline news anymore. The deal was approved months ago, and I must say that although I haven't paid all that much attention to the sale, and I've never been one to read The Journal, I also haven't heard anyone complain about Murdoch trying to transform the paper.

Murdoch's track record isn't exactly the greatest. While he was forced to sell the Boston Herald in favor of a local Fox channel, Murdoch was certainly the final factor in the Herald's tabloid transformation and sensationalist approach to the news. Consider as well the New York Post. I suppose it is supposed to be a credible news source, but it looks like it belongs in the grocery store checkout. When I visited the Post's website this morning, one of the images on the main page was that of a winged, two-headed monster; one head was Bill, one was Hillary. The accompanying headline reads, "2-Headed Monster," with a sub-head of, "Barack: I'm Fighting Against Both Clintons." (The article if you're interested.) And in case you were wondering, they managed to capture two of the most unflattering images I have ever seen of the Clintons.

I could look at every publication under the Murdoch banner past and present, but suffice to say, many of them are decidedly more sensationalist in their coverage and tabloid in their design. But would he dare give The Journal, a staple of the American business community, what I am dubbing "The Murdoch Treatment"?

According to excerpts from a conversation between Journal staff and Murdoch himself, he doesn't want to change the Journal.

WSJ: Tell us what you would do… Are there changes you would like to see at the Journal, improve it?

Mr. Murdoch: Not at all.

WSJ: Some people would say the front page might be boring.

Mr. Murdoch: The front page is not boring. Absolutely not.

WSJ: Then what's the opportunity for you? Digital?

Mr. Murdoch: I think it's in the digital area, digital and TV. And I think we've got to pour some money into digital. We've got to do a lot of things there… There's so much going on on the Internet. We've got to find new ways and new business models to get revenues. Or else the world is going to be owned by Google.

Who knows? If what he said here is true, perhaps Murdoch could do well by The Journal. They are certainly a more traditional publication, and I doubt they have embraced the Web as much as will be necessary to sustain themselves in the future. (I have to make an aside here: I find it hilarious that Murdoch is afraid of the world being taken over by Google when he's spent his entire life trying to build a global empire of news and entertainment and has more than once run afoul of anti-monopoly laws.)

Here, a slightly different viewpoint from Keith Olbermann:



He and his guest make a valid point: If you want to expand your business, you really shouldn't buy a newspaper. They aren't incredible money makers, and some of those Murdoch owns actually COST him money. No businessman would accept that except for the power and voice it gives him as a private mouthpiece.

Maybe these are just some unfounded liberal fears. Maybe Murdoch has as much respect for the institution of The Journal as many others. Maybe it will all work out for the best.

Maybe.