Murdoch Buys Wall Street Journal

Yep, it is corporate ship - and I have a problem with the entire construct. But that is beyond this humble little thread.

 

There is a condition in which those afflicted with "moonbatism", tend to believe that all things Murdoch, are EVIL.... You find them complaining about that there Fox News, Bush, devil penises, Nazis, , etc.. you name the catch phrase of the day.

No one complained when Heinz(kerry) made their last acquisition.

Progress in business, making money, creating jobs and wealth, these things are EVIL!!!!

 

Jeremy, this isn't about Murdoch, to me, as much as it is about consolidation, as I earlier said. I have seen the other side of the picture, in the beverage industry, mainly, but elsewhere, too. Brown Forman buys up California wineries, collapses 15 into one - making Ventana rotgut, and tossing out numerous skilled workers, not to mention the wineries producing consumer choices among many brands. I don't think market consolidation is good for an economy. It has nothing to do with ideology, at least not for me.

 

Consolidation is indirectly good for the economy. If you let things continue on the status quo, eventually, those businesses that could have been consolidated, modernized, and streamlined into cutting costs and running more efficiently will just go belly up. Then were is everyone involved? How does an economy benefit from a business going under or losing money?

Some people lose jobs, vs. ALL PEOPLE LOSING JOBS...

Businesses are out to make money, not lose it. When they make money, the economy benefits from tax revenues, employers, new homes, other businesses, restaurants, banks, gas stations, grocery stores, and other things that grow up around business..

If Brown Forman consolidated it was because they saw a way to save money. Saving money, equals making money... If all they wanted was the brands, why should they feel obligated to lose money keeping other wineries open, when they can produce everything in one place?

Some day you will own a business and these things will begin to make sense to you. Your lack of understanding in the concept of making money vs. losing money troubles me. I would suggest you become a politician, they are good at doing the latter.

 

I, for the most part, agree with you on market consolidation. Sometimes though, I believe it is necessary for some business to survive, definitely not the case here with media. BUT, I don't think murdoch is changing anything in media, if anything foxnews was a necessary change in the landscape of news broadcasters. So many older news companies getting away with pushing their agenda and tweaking the news to their benefit.

The only ones complaining about foxnews seems to be those who are scared of the truth. They like all the news to be the same bent without anyone to challenge that bent. I agree foxnews appears to be conservative in there bent, but anything a few degrees different from a 180 is conservative for the media.

I despise how the news works, I have been on a couple of local segments, and seeing how distorted they make the segment and how setup the shots are, it is frustrating to know I was USED to get their shot. I won't do it anymore and avoid cameras because of this. My first experience was when I was in forth grade and the editor made me look like an idiot but cutting off my sentence. And it was only one sentence to begin with!

 

Jeremy, Jeremy. You make presumptions you know nothing about. I have owned, several businesses, the last was a restaurant in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. The bottom line in business, to me, is never raw profit alone, but relationships that grow to build strength in what I do. I seek to provide something of worth over the long haul with people who value what I'm offering. I think brand diversity is a part of that puzzle. I would rather take a dive in the short haul and build a sustained following over the long haul. Further, I do not believe buying and selling to rake it in does anyone any good - and yet, if profit was the only criterion, this would be the mother's milk of business. Care to discuss the web bubble? Profits on paper? Warren Buffett?

That we have a different philosophy of business does not by definition mean I am right, you are wrong, or the reverse. What's troubling to me is the automatic assumption of same.

Regarding the Brown Forman consolidation, you don't know wine, so your statement above is understandable. The short of it is that you cannot simply replicate craft wine in a behemoth factory, with all capital machinery consolidated to one place.

 

That;s a fair post, debunked. Thanks for the food for thought.

 

No presumptions.. I think I probably hit the nail on the head here... I'm not talking about "raw profit", getting rich, making tons of money.. I'm talking about running a business to the the extent that your assets equal you liabilities. You can still sleep at night and forge relationships, etc., and live a pretty ethical life, without LOSING money...

You missed my point... Consolidation is not about raking it in, it's about common business sense, maintaining a equilibrium between, asset and liability. Doing it any different usually leads to a defunct business, people out of work, and eventually, no business...

Again, no assumption here.. I think I hit the nail on the head.

Oh contraire, but I do... Enough to know that anything coming out of California tastes like shit... I always tell people, if you must do Californian, do a white, never NEVER ever, a red.. If you are going to do red, do Italian, no matter how cheap, it will be a thousand times better than that rag weed excuse for grapes out west.

Wine in California is easy to replicate. I just drink cheap draft beer and piss in a cup.


I would not consider myself an expert, but a connoisseur in Australian Shiraz, (not to be confused with the California ShirAZZ... another in a long line of shit grapes), and Italian wines.

No offense to those in California who love their wine btw.. I think the same of people here in Wisconsin that think their beer (Miller) tastes great... Again, I could piss in a cup and they'd have the same thing..

Peace.

 

Hahahah - OK, Jeremy - seems we have both made presumptions (you said "some day you will own a business..."). I think we probably both know the difference between "viable" and "dead." Between thinking only of profit - as Brown Forman has done, eviscerating the consortium of craft makers in the process - and losing your shorts, in the desire to produce a given good, no matter the cost - is a vast world of choice. I likely lean more to the latter, and it seems, you lean to the former. No harm, no foul.

I wouldn't go so far as to call California grapes "ragweed," but then, my cousin's a winemaker - formerly, headed up Jekel. I would say California process tends to Parker's world, which is not my bag - viscous syrup, really. But I have loved many California reds - Del Dotto, for one. Dynamite Cabernet for another. Many, many others.

Not generally a fan of Aussie Shiraz - tends to the same hyper-extracted fruit of the worst of the Californians and other new world reds.

Love Italian wine. Generally prefer French - an austere Burgundy or Bordeaux, for laying and gaining, not losing, with age.

 

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06292007/watch4.html

 

Beautiful. Thank you, Rob.

 

While it isnt the end of the world, it is one small step in the wrong direction for the people.

"But THE JOURNAL's newsroom is another matter - there facts are sacred and independence revered. Rupert Murdoch has told the Bancrofts he'll not meddle with the reporting. But he's accustomed to using journalism as a personal spittoon. In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, he turned the dogs of war loose in the newsrooms of his empire and they howled for blood. Murdoch himself said the greatest thing to come out of the war would be "$20 a barrel for oil."

Instead of checking the excesses of private and public power, these 21st century barons of the first amendment revel in them; the public be damned."

 

The world is bigger than America - the most watched broadcasting comapany in the world (i.e. the whole world (not just America ) is the BBC - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC

Iraq war illegal - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm (as stated by UN secretary-general) - in the UK we have come to terms with the fact the Iraq war was illegal (maybe you should too)

I know the US seem to forget the UN and the Geneva Convention but the fact is they signed up to it and made it part of the law.

 

sorry, replace world with america...the rest of the statement still fits...

you're quoting Kofi Annan...that in itself makes it not a valid statement. Kofi has lead one of the worst and most corrupt UN's in its history, if not the most corrupt. If Kofi would have done his job with keeping inspectors in Iraq and his own hand OUT of the oil-for-food scandal, then we might not be there. Also, I remind you that Kofi made that statement over a year AFTER we went into Iraq, and only 51 days BEFORE Bush got reelected. It seems to me that Kofi was just trying to (again) do some sort of political scheming. As far as the Geneva Convention goes, if you will read it, it applies to military groups of an official govt and state. Terrorists are considered "enemy combatants" which are not a part of an official military. Geneva Conventions therefore do not apply. But hey, I guess you want us to comply with a group of people that like to chop others heads off? We have to comply but we just skirt the issue when talking about them? Why not have the UN get in there and "force them" on their "illegal actions???""" You can't have your cake and eat it too....

 

I find the hub-bub about murdoch owning the WSJ a little stilted, at best. In the US, News corp owns the new york post and now the WSJ.

If you compare it to another huge media company (new york times company), it's reader base is far smaller. NYTCo owns the new york times, the boston globe, IHT, 16 or 17 smaller newspapers around the country and syndicates its own content into other non-owned papers as well. Yet, no one really complains about it.

 

people also take the NYTimes as the absolute truth and the best source...I say Murdoch will try to turn the Wall Street journal into a newspaper that will really compete with the NYTimes and give readers more choice.

 

This is crazy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation#Holdings

 

This doesn't make sense to me. I don't think the WSJ was the "little guy on the block" in need of Murdoch's master marketing touch - I believe it's readership exceeds the NYT:

Newspaper circulation numbers are reported to the Audit Bureau of Circulations. Best-selling papers as of September 30, 2006 in the U.S.A., according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, [4] are USA Today, 2,549,695; The Wall Street Journal, 2,074,127 and The New York Times, 1,623,697.

Furthermore, it is an extremely well respected newspaper. The WSJ:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_street_journal


At the very least, I believe it was already able to "compete" quite well, and the "choice" exists already.

Sorry, d16, but I don't agree at all with your logic.

 

Surprised?

 

Since earning my first (extremely well deserved) infraction (Drink & Type: just say no), I am politeness personified. Even if d16 needs a cup of coffee.