If that happens you'll only be able to use the right button on your mouse when you visit this site.  The left button will be disabled.

OK, I played this one for laughs, as is my habit, and even got a few, but here's a "serious" look at the question from ForeignPolicyOnline.  But, looking at the date of the post [May 2007], it remains to be seen if Devin Leonard's optimism is premature.

Let's face facts -- everything Murdoch touches turns to shit, and extremely odiferous shit at that, but it's often very profitable shit indeed.

And given how the WSJ has consistemtly pooh-poohed, when not being totally oblivious to, the negatives of unfettered immigraion into the US, legal or otherwise, I do savor the irony here.  Wonder if arriviste immigrant Murdoch has caused them [the WSJ editorial honchos] to regret, ever-so-slightly and ever-so-briefly, their mostly mispalced faith in their "open boarders" mantra?



Seven Questions: Rupert Murdoch Strikes Again  

 
Posted May 2007  

When Rupert Murdoch offered $5 billion for Dow Jones, owners of the Wall Street Journal, eyebrows went up around the world. Is one of the United States’ top newspapers about to descend to trashy light entertainment? Devin Leonard of Fortune magazine doesn’t think so—he sees a media pioneer seizing the future while others are fleeing.




Does this man look nervous? Rupert Murdoch is embracing the newspaper industry at a time when other media players are running scared.

FOREIGN POLICY: Why is Rupert Murdoch moving for Dow Jones and the Wall Street Journal now?

Devin Leonard: The Wall Street Journal is a property he’s always wanted. Along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, it’s one of the best, most influential papers in the United States and its franchise extends to Europe and to Asia. For the longest time, the paper wouldn’t have been for sale, but now there’s a lot of uncertainty about newspapers. It’s not circulation. Circulation is flat or it’s declining slightly. The problem for newspapers is the exodus of advertisers fleeing to the Web. You might say Murdoch is a shark who smells blood in the water—it’s the time to bite.

FP: Does Murdoch have the solution to these problems?

DL: He certainly has a bigger vision for the Wall Street Journal. It’s not just the newspaper that’s important to him; he’s using the Wall Street Journal to brand the financial cable channel he’s launching. He’s also a lot more Web-savvy than a lot of other media company CEOs. His purchase of MySpace.com raised a lot of questions at the time, but now it seems like a home run. Murdoch sees the bigger picture, and he certainly sees the bigger picture internationally.

FP: So does this takeover show the way the new industry is going?

DL: I don’t know if it’s something everyone can replicate. It’s more a matter of Murdoch’s vision for his company, News Corp. Think about News Corp: They have a Hollywood studio, satellite TV distribution, and newspapers around the world. The Washington Post Company and New York Times Company are largely organized around one newspaper each. News Corp has tentacles all over.

FP: How do you think the average Wall Street Journal reader feels about Murdoch taking over?

DL: I can’t see how they’d really care all that much. In liberal circles in the United States, people are saying “Oh my God, he’s going to take it over, he’s going make the paper more conservative!” Have any of these people read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal lately, or at any time in the last couple of decades? Arguably, the editors are more conservative than Murdoch!

FP: A lot of people say that he took The Times of London down market—isn’t that a danger here?

DL: When I look at The Times of London, it seems as good as the quality papers in the United States. It’s all in the eye of the beholder. Plus, I think it’s harder to manipulate business news than political news. Business coverage is much more numbers driven. You have an audience that’s counting on making business decisions based on the information in the Wall Street Journal. If you’re giving them twisted or inaccurate information, they’ll cancel their subscriptions. So it would be bad for business.

FP: In 10 years’ time, will people look back on this as a watershed in the news industry?

DL: It’s possible that in 10 years people will be saying “Wow, Murdoch was so smart. When everybody else was fleeing the newspaper industry, he made big investments and they paid off.” But one of the things you have to give Dow Jones/Wall Street Journal credit for is their Web site. The Washington Post gives their content away for free; the New York Times gives most of theirs away for free, too. The Wall Street Journal has a lot of subscribers, and they’ve managed to make people pay for the product. That suggests there’s an after-print future for the publication, and I’m sure that appeals to Murdoch.

FP: So what does he bring to the equation?

DL: I think if you can combine Murdoch’s upcoming financial cable franchise with that Internet franchise, there could be a way of doing business that nobody else has thought of. Others have tried it, but Murdoch has more distribution. He has a lot more pieces to play with than his competitors. And he has a big vision. That puts him in a different league.

Devin Leonard is a senior writer for Fortune magazine. He covers the business of entertainment and media and writes the Media Bubble column.