Someone recently asked me -- not for any reason worth mentioning here -- about the politics of the New York Post. This someone was apparently under the impression I live closer to NYC than I do, or have some reason to follow its tabloids in particular.
I made to her the following observations:
I won't claim to know anything about the political complexion of the Post either. Maybe some New Yorker will (a) admit to reading it with some regularity and (b) clue us both in.
But since you brought it up ... further thoughts.
I do know that it is part of the Murdochian empire. News Corp. bought it in 1976, [the Post created the immortal headline "Headless Body in Topless Bar" in 1983], News Corp. sold it in 1988, acquired it again in 1993 (more on that in a sec), and has owned it since. I personally would not conclude that this makes the Post a "conservative" paper. After all, I don't believe Murdoch is ideologically driven. I think he is profit driven. (Which, I assure you, I also think of as a good trait.)
Fox News is, IMHO, rightward slanted, and in fact they more-or-less admit this, though they generally say that they are justifiably so given the contrary slant of their competitors. They see themselves more as a balancing factor than as in themselves balanced -- two different notions. Again -- no quarrel from me. I don't beleive in "balance" or in "objectivity" either except as widespread fictions. There is true, there is false. Within the realm of the truthful, all truth-telling is selective. Only God knows truth without partiality.
I am reminded of what a little girl wrote to the editor of another NY newspaper in the late 19th century. "Papa says, if you see it in the Sun it's so." Yes, Virginia, there is truth. There is that which simply "is so" as your father sensibly defines truth. But neither the Sun nor any other paper ever printed failed to select particular truths as more worthy of print than others for particular reasons. As indeed, their decision to put your letter on the front page one fateful day rather illustrates. Is there some sense in which that was an objective news-value-driven decision?
But I'll return to the 21st century now ... if I am right about Murdoch, we can't infer anything about the Post, the WSJ, etc., from Fox. All we know is that putting Roger Ailes in charge and letting him run Fox News has made Murdoch a lot of money, so Murdoch has left that goose alone to lay its golden eggs the way the goose thinks best. That doesn't imply any ideological passion in the head office of News Corp at all, and my guess is that the Post probably is largely autonomous in day-to-day terms too.
There is an interesting bit of history. As I mentioned, the first News Corp. era for the Post was 1976 - 1988. When they were putting together Fox News network, they wanted NYC's WNYW, but under cross-ownership rules then in place they couldn't have both WNYW and the Post. So they opted for the former, and sold the Post to Peter Kalikow.
Kalikow was wealthy from real estate wheelings and dealings, but knew zip abut the news business, and for several years the Post went steadily downhill. News Corp bought it again in 1993 -- at that time it was considered a rescue, so the cross-ownership rules were waived. Hmmm. Murdoch was given an either/or choice and ended up with both. A conspiracy theorist could go to town on that.
click
Bottom line, If you see it in Pragmatism Refreshed -- it's so. Otherwise. you're taking your chances.
Showing posts with label Rupert Murdoch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rupert Murdoch. Show all posts
21 August 2011
22 July 2011
News Corp Empire
It all appears to be imploding. It begins to have the feel of Egypt in the final days of the Mubarak regime.
I'll just provide you with some links in case you, dear reader, aren't up on all this and want the materials for a quick catch-up.
On June 23, an Old Bailey jury found Levi Bellfield guilty of the murder of Milly Dowler nine years ago. Never mind about the particulars now -- the verdict re-opened old wounds at News Corp., wounds its rivals were in a position to exploit.
Here's what The Guardian had to say on July 4, about Milly Dowler, and the hacking of her voice mail: click.
Miss Dowler's disappearance goes back to 2002. For a bomb that went off after ticking quietly for nine years, this one made quite a mess.
Then on July 6, reports appeared that the particular Murdochian property involved in the Dowler matter, the News of the World, had also hacked the phones of thr families of victims of the July 7, 2005 London terrorist attacks.
For perspective, it has long been understood that the tabloid press in the UK will do anything for a scoop on the Royal family or wealthy celebrities. A lot that would have been winked at in such a context was exciting outrage now that ordinary folks were the victims.
Murdoch decided he had to throw someone or something under the proverbial bus. It was the "News of the World" (NotW hereafter) itself -- he closed that paper, one which had been around since 1843, on July 10 of this year, assigning 200 working people to unemployment.
But who had been the relevant underling? Rebekah Brooks was the editor of NotW from 2000 to 2003, the perod of Milly Dowler's death. She had since become a crucial lieutenant to Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch initially gave every indication that he would stand staunchly by his woman.
But the heat became too much for him. On July 14th, a large investor in News Corp., Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, demanded her resignation, and on the 15th, she complied. Things have gotten even worse for our Ms Brooks. She was thereafter arrested.
Further, this has also become a scandal about corruption at Scotland Yard. Years ago, Brooks admited to parliament that under her leadership, the NotW paid police officers for information -- an admission causing consequences both for her organization and for theirs just now.
And there is a mysterious death to throw into the mix. The sort of death that may have absolutely nothing to do with the rest of this, but that will keep conspiracy theorists intrigued.
For another spiking of the weirdness factor, there was the attempt to push a "pie" into Murdoch's face while he testified before Parliament, an attempt warded off by Murdoch's Chinese tigress of a wife, Wendi. Look at the YouTube. Wendi is sitting behind her husband. She's wearing the salmon-colored jacket. She's a former volleyball player, and she certainly appears to be spiking the attacker's head.
The above links will give you, roughly speaking, this story thus far. Perhaps with the addition of one or two points from here.
Conclusion: the vollyball move won't save the empire, which is troubled by internal rot, not just external idiots with pseudo-pies.
I'll just provide you with some links in case you, dear reader, aren't up on all this and want the materials for a quick catch-up.
On June 23, an Old Bailey jury found Levi Bellfield guilty of the murder of Milly Dowler nine years ago. Never mind about the particulars now -- the verdict re-opened old wounds at News Corp., wounds its rivals were in a position to exploit.
Here's what The Guardian had to say on July 4, about Milly Dowler, and the hacking of her voice mail: click.
Miss Dowler's disappearance goes back to 2002. For a bomb that went off after ticking quietly for nine years, this one made quite a mess.
Then on July 6, reports appeared that the particular Murdochian property involved in the Dowler matter, the News of the World, had also hacked the phones of thr families of victims of the July 7, 2005 London terrorist attacks.
For perspective, it has long been understood that the tabloid press in the UK will do anything for a scoop on the Royal family or wealthy celebrities. A lot that would have been winked at in such a context was exciting outrage now that ordinary folks were the victims.
Murdoch decided he had to throw someone or something under the proverbial bus. It was the "News of the World" (NotW hereafter) itself -- he closed that paper, one which had been around since 1843, on July 10 of this year, assigning 200 working people to unemployment.
But who had been the relevant underling? Rebekah Brooks was the editor of NotW from 2000 to 2003, the perod of Milly Dowler's death. She had since become a crucial lieutenant to Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch initially gave every indication that he would stand staunchly by his woman.
But the heat became too much for him. On July 14th, a large investor in News Corp., Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, demanded her resignation, and on the 15th, she complied. Things have gotten even worse for our Ms Brooks. She was thereafter arrested.
Further, this has also become a scandal about corruption at Scotland Yard. Years ago, Brooks admited to parliament that under her leadership, the NotW paid police officers for information -- an admission causing consequences both for her organization and for theirs just now.
And there is a mysterious death to throw into the mix. The sort of death that may have absolutely nothing to do with the rest of this, but that will keep conspiracy theorists intrigued.
For another spiking of the weirdness factor, there was the attempt to push a "pie" into Murdoch's face while he testified before Parliament, an attempt warded off by Murdoch's Chinese tigress of a wife, Wendi. Look at the YouTube. Wendi is sitting behind her husband. She's wearing the salmon-colored jacket. She's a former volleyball player, and she certainly appears to be spiking the attacker's head.
The above links will give you, roughly speaking, this story thus far. Perhaps with the addition of one or two points from here.
Conclusion: the vollyball move won't save the empire, which is troubled by internal rot, not just external idiots with pseudo-pies.
07 August 2009
Friday's child is loving and giving
In the spirit of Friday's child, then, let me give you each a few links.
The task of a link farm is both to amuse and to instruct.
First, under amusement, The Onion explains that there is a way to wipe out the US national debt. Hail, Octavia! William Wolfrum finally settles the "birth certificate" matter exhaustively. And Comedy Zone collects some vintage Woody Allen quotes.
Second, under instruction. Sam Antar, the former CFO of Crazy Eddie and in that capacity a crook, has turned to warning about white-collar crime, on the principle that "it takes one to know one" or something. Here is what he has to say about the internet retailer, Overstock.com (NASDAQ: OSTK). Meanwhile, Rolling Stone tells us that Guitar Hero has a David Lee Roth dominated understanding of Van Halen. Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. lost about $3.4 billion in the first half of 2009, and Murdoch takes this as evidence that information wants to be more expensive.
Thirdly, some links both amuse and instruct in equal measure. The CJR explained back in June that reporters should not be content to live and die like gerbils. That was well in advance of the appearance of a movie establishing that gerbils are really spies. Finally, Doonesbury sets us right about politicans and their affairs.
The task of a link farm is both to amuse and to instruct.
First, under amusement, The Onion explains that there is a way to wipe out the US national debt. Hail, Octavia! William Wolfrum finally settles the "birth certificate" matter exhaustively. And Comedy Zone collects some vintage Woody Allen quotes.
Second, under instruction. Sam Antar, the former CFO of Crazy Eddie and in that capacity a crook, has turned to warning about white-collar crime, on the principle that "it takes one to know one" or something. Here is what he has to say about the internet retailer, Overstock.com (NASDAQ: OSTK). Meanwhile, Rolling Stone tells us that Guitar Hero has a David Lee Roth dominated understanding of Van Halen. Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. lost about $3.4 billion in the first half of 2009, and Murdoch takes this as evidence that information wants to be more expensive.
Thirdly, some links both amuse and instruct in equal measure. The CJR explained back in June that reporters should not be content to live and die like gerbils. That was well in advance of the appearance of a movie establishing that gerbils are really spies. Finally, Doonesbury sets us right about politicans and their affairs.
28 December 2007
"Welcome to the helm, Mr. Murdoch"
This summer, News Corp. (the corporate parents of Rupert Murdoch's various newspapers and the Fox broadcasting properties) agreed to buy Dow Jones, the famous keeper-of-stock-indexes, and publisher of the Wall Street Journal. The price tag was $5.6 billion.
Months elapsed, though, between agreement and the closing of the deal. The latter took place earlier this month.
Anyway, the WSJ may have decided to welcome him with a bit of controversy, because November saw a memorable screw-up in a front-page story in which the Journal accused the giant broker-dealer Merrill Lynch of accounting shenanigans, then had to back down, issuing a correction.
On Nov. 2, the Journal alleged that Merrill had participated in transactions with hedge funds designed to cover up and delay the reporting of its losses on collateralized debt obligations. That article's only specific example of one of the supposed off-balance-sheet deals had been a deal in which the broker-dealer allegedly sold mortgage securities to a fund, while providing that the fund would have the right to sell the securities back to Merrill after one year for a guaranteed return. This deal did have the smell to it of the old "Nigerian barge" transactions of Enron scandal memory. Class-action lawsuits by and on behalf of Merrill stockholders have since prominently referenced that publication.
Merrill Lynch's stock price (NYSE: MER) as of the close of business Nov. 1 was $62.19 per share. By the end of trading on Nov. 2, it was at $57.28. Merrill's price continued to fall through two and a half more weeks, closing at $51.81 on Nov. 21.
The following Monday, good news arrived, in the form of a "correction and amplification" by the Journal, in which the paper acknowledged that its Nov. 2 article had been based on incorrect information. The correction focused on the only specific instance the original article had purported to produce -- that sale and buy-back.
In its later note, the Journal said that while Merrill did "propose" such a deal, it was never completed, because "the firm's finance department determined it didn't meet proper accounting criteria." This has a much more hygienic odor, suggesting simply that some risk manager or compliance officer was on the ball.
Murdoch's detractors can say if they like that it was the dispiriting influence of his looming captaincy that created such a gaffe. His admirers can say, "this is the sort of thing that he's coming in to fix!"
Say what you will, it seems like a big black eye to me. And I think it might be time for those of us accustomed to a fix of market-oriented news each morning to switch to the Financial Times.
Months elapsed, though, between agreement and the closing of the deal. The latter took place earlier this month.
Anyway, the WSJ may have decided to welcome him with a bit of controversy, because November saw a memorable screw-up in a front-page story in which the Journal accused the giant broker-dealer Merrill Lynch of accounting shenanigans, then had to back down, issuing a correction.
On Nov. 2, the Journal alleged that Merrill had participated in transactions with hedge funds designed to cover up and delay the reporting of its losses on collateralized debt obligations. That article's only specific example of one of the supposed off-balance-sheet deals had been a deal in which the broker-dealer allegedly sold mortgage securities to a fund, while providing that the fund would have the right to sell the securities back to Merrill after one year for a guaranteed return. This deal did have the smell to it of the old "Nigerian barge" transactions of Enron scandal memory. Class-action lawsuits by and on behalf of Merrill stockholders have since prominently referenced that publication.
Merrill Lynch's stock price (NYSE: MER) as of the close of business Nov. 1 was $62.19 per share. By the end of trading on Nov. 2, it was at $57.28. Merrill's price continued to fall through two and a half more weeks, closing at $51.81 on Nov. 21.
The following Monday, good news arrived, in the form of a "correction and amplification" by the Journal, in which the paper acknowledged that its Nov. 2 article had been based on incorrect information. The correction focused on the only specific instance the original article had purported to produce -- that sale and buy-back.
In its later note, the Journal said that while Merrill did "propose" such a deal, it was never completed, because "the firm's finance department determined it didn't meet proper accounting criteria." This has a much more hygienic odor, suggesting simply that some risk manager or compliance officer was on the ball.
Murdoch's detractors can say if they like that it was the dispiriting influence of his looming captaincy that created such a gaffe. His admirers can say, "this is the sort of thing that he's coming in to fix!"
Say what you will, it seems like a big black eye to me. And I think it might be time for those of us accustomed to a fix of market-oriented news each morning to switch to the Financial Times.
01 August 2007
Three subjects
1. Tom Snyder, best known as the star of the Tomorrow Show between 1973 and 1982, passed away, due to leukemia, at age 71, this weekend.
I'll miss him. I'll miss my memories of late nights/early mornings in my dorm at college, staying up to see what guest Tom had, enjoying his laugh. I'll miss Dan Ackroyd's take on Snyder's mannerisms and ... again ... that laugh.
Do I regret his passing because he was a talented guy or just because I regret my own aging? It hardly matters. May the road to heaven rise up to meet him now, and may the wind at his back never be his own.
2. Last week, I described the cartoon caption contest in The New Yorker, and especially one uncaptioned cartoon. It involved a monkey and a typewriter. A scientist is looking at a piece of paper and saying ...
Here are the three finalists. Not in the right order (or with exactly the right words either, because I'm doing this from memory), but, roughly speaking, here they are:
* Bad news, another rejection letter.
* Why don't you re-write it from a third-monkey point of view?
* We'll run this past our infinite number of editors.
It seems to me that the first of those is something of a cheat. There aren't any visual clues (like a ripped-open envelope) that the page is a letter from an outside source. The clues suggest that its a page that just came from the monkey's labors. The second and third of the above answers both work from that premise. And they're both funnier.
I like the infinite number of editors line. What about you folks?
3. The Bancroft family and, accordingly, the board of Dow Jones, the business-news publishing company responsible for the Wall Street Journal, Barrons' and the famous Dow Jones stock indexes, have agreed to sell the company to Fox and Rupert Murdoch.
As with Tom Snyder, I regret the passing. I wish the old WSJ the best of afterlife fates for a newspaper. But, really, consolidation is inevitable and there is no real point wailing or gnashing one's teeth.
The recent demise of the Weekly World News, though ... now THAT was a tragedy. Where will supermarketr shoppers get their Elvis-sightings fix now???
I'll miss him. I'll miss my memories of late nights/early mornings in my dorm at college, staying up to see what guest Tom had, enjoying his laugh. I'll miss Dan Ackroyd's take on Snyder's mannerisms and ... again ... that laugh.
Do I regret his passing because he was a talented guy or just because I regret my own aging? It hardly matters. May the road to heaven rise up to meet him now, and may the wind at his back never be his own.
2. Last week, I described the cartoon caption contest in The New Yorker, and especially one uncaptioned cartoon. It involved a monkey and a typewriter. A scientist is looking at a piece of paper and saying ...
Here are the three finalists. Not in the right order (or with exactly the right words either, because I'm doing this from memory), but, roughly speaking, here they are:
* Bad news, another rejection letter.
* Why don't you re-write it from a third-monkey point of view?
* We'll run this past our infinite number of editors.
It seems to me that the first of those is something of a cheat. There aren't any visual clues (like a ripped-open envelope) that the page is a letter from an outside source. The clues suggest that its a page that just came from the monkey's labors. The second and third of the above answers both work from that premise. And they're both funnier.
I like the infinite number of editors line. What about you folks?
3. The Bancroft family and, accordingly, the board of Dow Jones, the business-news publishing company responsible for the Wall Street Journal, Barrons' and the famous Dow Jones stock indexes, have agreed to sell the company to Fox and Rupert Murdoch.
As with Tom Snyder, I regret the passing. I wish the old WSJ the best of afterlife fates for a newspaper. But, really, consolidation is inevitable and there is no real point wailing or gnashing one's teeth.
The recent demise of the Weekly World News, though ... now THAT was a tragedy. Where will supermarketr shoppers get their Elvis-sightings fix now???
23 July 2007
Dow Jones & Murdoch
Since I last mentioned the subject, Rupert Murdoch has taken a big step further toward control of Dow Jones, and with that control of one of my favorite newspapers, the Wall Street Journal.
On July 17, the board of directors of Dow Jones voted to approve a merger at the amount Murdoch has been, $5 billion.
Much of that money would go to the members of the Bancroft family, but some of them still seem hesitant to take it. Perhaps because they feel that by holding out they can get more. Or, just perhaps, due to a sort of status anxiety. When they sell, they'll be just another wealthy family. Until they sell, they're the family with a controlling stake in Dow Jones, which sounds cooler.
Apparently, Burkle (a friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton who appeared for a time willing to compete with Murdoch in an auction) has withdrawn from the picture. But Brad Greenspan still has aspirations.
Or, insead of aspirations, one might want to say "delusions of grandeur." There's little that indicates that he could pull off a coup here. Murdoch will get the prize, though he might yet have to increase the price a bit.
Recently, the WSJ has made cutbacks that I thought ill advised, even a curtailment in the literal size of the papers used for each page. They're in trouble, and it seems clear they're not in a position to remain independent.
Life is tough, and in an internet-dominated world, consolidation among the pulp-and-ink papers that remain is a fact. As the kids say: Deal.
On July 17, the board of directors of Dow Jones voted to approve a merger at the amount Murdoch has been, $5 billion.
Much of that money would go to the members of the Bancroft family, but some of them still seem hesitant to take it. Perhaps because they feel that by holding out they can get more. Or, just perhaps, due to a sort of status anxiety. When they sell, they'll be just another wealthy family. Until they sell, they're the family with a controlling stake in Dow Jones, which sounds cooler.
Apparently, Burkle (a friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton who appeared for a time willing to compete with Murdoch in an auction) has withdrawn from the picture. But Brad Greenspan still has aspirations.
Or, insead of aspirations, one might want to say "delusions of grandeur." There's little that indicates that he could pull off a coup here. Murdoch will get the prize, though he might yet have to increase the price a bit.
Recently, the WSJ has made cutbacks that I thought ill advised, even a curtailment in the literal size of the papers used for each page. They're in trouble, and it seems clear they're not in a position to remain independent.
Life is tough, and in an internet-dominated world, consolidation among the pulp-and-ink papers that remain is a fact. As the kids say: Deal.
14 July 2007
Dow Jones
So what's going on with this Dow Jones story, anyway? I'm a faithful reader of the Wall Street Journal, which DJ publishes, and a variety of other publications (and blogs) that discuss financial news, but I'm having a tough time keeping up here.
Rupert Murdoch wants to buy the WSJ. A lot of people are unhappy with that, for a lot of different reasons. Its been two and a half months now since the original offer (May 1) and there's no signed-and-sealed deal yet, so the forces of resistance to the feared Fox-ification of the WSJ are evidently having some impact. A retardant but likely not a brake.
My guess, in other words, is that the deal will go through. One odd recent twist was the report four days ago that Brad Greenspan and Ron Burkle are posing as white knights, talking about putting together an alternative offer. Burkle, a California-based supermarket magnate with ties to the Clinton family, may be interested in foiling a new growth spurt for the Murdoch/Fox empire. Or he may see the Dow Jones as a prize for himself. Or he may just be toying with the idea because he's a megalomanaic. Who knows these days?
Here's something I wrote about the Burkle-Clinton connection more than a year ago, on another incarnation of this blog.
http://cfaille.blog-city.com/a_pat_on_the_back_to_mickey_kaus.htm
So ... what's my point? Personally, I long for the days (though perhaps I view them through rose-tinted glasses) when newspapers were the property of men with distinctive outsized personalities, men who had perhaps memories of childhood toys named Rosebud. I long for those days not because those men were perfect (surely not!), but because the products of colorless homogenized bureaucratic corporations seem necessarily ... what's the word I want here ... bland.
I don't like bland with my news. Let's have a few more Hearsts, Pulitzers, and Colonel McCormicks in the world. Women as well as men next time around of course. The Wall Street Journal's recent business problems, the problems that have led it into "play" in the first place, are a part of that blandness. They need a personality at the helm.
Murdoch isn't the solution. He's manuveuring behind Fox here. Greenspan and Burkle? Ah, we might have something. Odd though they may be, and unlikely though their success here surely is, I think I've acquired a rooting interest in this fight.
Rupert Murdoch wants to buy the WSJ. A lot of people are unhappy with that, for a lot of different reasons. Its been two and a half months now since the original offer (May 1) and there's no signed-and-sealed deal yet, so the forces of resistance to the feared Fox-ification of the WSJ are evidently having some impact. A retardant but likely not a brake.
My guess, in other words, is that the deal will go through. One odd recent twist was the report four days ago that Brad Greenspan and Ron Burkle are posing as white knights, talking about putting together an alternative offer. Burkle, a California-based supermarket magnate with ties to the Clinton family, may be interested in foiling a new growth spurt for the Murdoch/Fox empire. Or he may see the Dow Jones as a prize for himself. Or he may just be toying with the idea because he's a megalomanaic. Who knows these days?
Here's something I wrote about the Burkle-Clinton connection more than a year ago, on another incarnation of this blog.
http://cfaille.blog-city.com/a_pat_on_the_back_to_mickey_kaus.htm
So ... what's my point? Personally, I long for the days (though perhaps I view them through rose-tinted glasses) when newspapers were the property of men with distinctive outsized personalities, men who had perhaps memories of childhood toys named Rosebud. I long for those days not because those men were perfect (surely not!), but because the products of colorless homogenized bureaucratic corporations seem necessarily ... what's the word I want here ... bland.
I don't like bland with my news. Let's have a few more Hearsts, Pulitzers, and Colonel McCormicks in the world. Women as well as men next time around of course. The Wall Street Journal's recent business problems, the problems that have led it into "play" in the first place, are a part of that blandness. They need a personality at the helm.
Murdoch isn't the solution. He's manuveuring behind Fox here. Greenspan and Burkle? Ah, we might have something. Odd though they may be, and unlikely though their success here surely is, I think I've acquired a rooting interest in this fight.
12 May 2007
Consolidation
Ah, the too-muchness of it.
Yes, everybody has understood for some time that the data-and-news market (I hate the term "media") is crowded and low-margin. From this it follows -- and has followed -- that a wave of consolidation is nigh.
But it's nigh no more. It's now.
And the wave crashed in on the shore of Now on April 24, when shareholders for The New York Times withheld 42% of their votes on the question of the re-election of the directors. They knew the directors had a majority of the votes sewed up, and they had no alternative slate of directors to offer. But, led by Morgan Stanley, they wanted to register a protest.
And they did. Forty-two percent is huge under the circumstances. A similar protest led to the resignation of Michael Eisner as head of Disney not long ago.
What has gotten Morgan Stanley (and one of its execs, Hassan Elmasry, in particular) so ticked off about the controlling group of the NYT? Falling profits, a slumping share price, and the dual roles of Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who is both chairman and publisher.
What seems behind Elmasry's campaign for change at the NYT, though, is the expectation that if the company changed its stock structure, it would become attractive to buyers. Not just to people buying small blocks of shares to round out portfolios, but to buyers aiming at control and offering a premium. In short, though not quite explicitly, Morgan Stanley wants the NYT to put itself up for sale.
The Times has so far successfully resisted, and Sulzberger has kept both jobs. Still ... the withheld votes served as a signal to the market.
Then on May 1, the Dow Jones (which publishes the Wall Street Journal) announced that Rupert Murdoch's vehicle, News Corp., had made an unsolicited bid to buy it at $60 a share. That's about $20 more than the level at which the stock was trading before the news.
The controlling group in this case is the Bancroft family, which owns 62% of the stock. If the Bancroft family holds firm, then, Murdoch can't buy a controlling share. It is by no means certain that they will hold firm, although so far (two weeks later) they seem to be.
But the logic of consolidation remains powerful and the offers will keep coming until somebody starts selling. On May 8, Thomson Corporation, a publishing company that provides data, software, etc. to lawyers, accountants, tax consultants, etc. -- and that has its operational headquarters in Fairfield County, Conn., offered to buy the London-based Reuters Group for 8.77 billion pounds (US $17.5 billion). If the combination goes through it could create the world's largest financial news and data concern.
Reuters' management is making nice. It appears that Thomson and Reuters will strike some sort of deal, pending review by several sets of regulatory/antitrust authorities on both sides of the Atlantic. Regulators likely won't just stand in front of this train yelling "stop!" At most, they'll demand some divestitures that will make the resultant combined company somewhat less huge than otherwise. But the wave of consolidation is upon us, and with this third offer in a few days, the sand castles on the shore have started dissolving.
Yes, everybody has understood for some time that the data-and-news market (I hate the term "media") is crowded and low-margin. From this it follows -- and has followed -- that a wave of consolidation is nigh.
But it's nigh no more. It's now.
And the wave crashed in on the shore of Now on April 24, when shareholders for The New York Times withheld 42% of their votes on the question of the re-election of the directors. They knew the directors had a majority of the votes sewed up, and they had no alternative slate of directors to offer. But, led by Morgan Stanley, they wanted to register a protest.
And they did. Forty-two percent is huge under the circumstances. A similar protest led to the resignation of Michael Eisner as head of Disney not long ago.
What has gotten Morgan Stanley (and one of its execs, Hassan Elmasry, in particular) so ticked off about the controlling group of the NYT? Falling profits, a slumping share price, and the dual roles of Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who is both chairman and publisher.
What seems behind Elmasry's campaign for change at the NYT, though, is the expectation that if the company changed its stock structure, it would become attractive to buyers. Not just to people buying small blocks of shares to round out portfolios, but to buyers aiming at control and offering a premium. In short, though not quite explicitly, Morgan Stanley wants the NYT to put itself up for sale.
The Times has so far successfully resisted, and Sulzberger has kept both jobs. Still ... the withheld votes served as a signal to the market.
Then on May 1, the Dow Jones (which publishes the Wall Street Journal) announced that Rupert Murdoch's vehicle, News Corp., had made an unsolicited bid to buy it at $60 a share. That's about $20 more than the level at which the stock was trading before the news.
The controlling group in this case is the Bancroft family, which owns 62% of the stock. If the Bancroft family holds firm, then, Murdoch can't buy a controlling share. It is by no means certain that they will hold firm, although so far (two weeks later) they seem to be.
But the logic of consolidation remains powerful and the offers will keep coming until somebody starts selling. On May 8, Thomson Corporation, a publishing company that provides data, software, etc. to lawyers, accountants, tax consultants, etc. -- and that has its operational headquarters in Fairfield County, Conn., offered to buy the London-based Reuters Group for 8.77 billion pounds (US $17.5 billion). If the combination goes through it could create the world's largest financial news and data concern.
Reuters' management is making nice. It appears that Thomson and Reuters will strike some sort of deal, pending review by several sets of regulatory/antitrust authorities on both sides of the Atlantic. Regulators likely won't just stand in front of this train yelling "stop!" At most, they'll demand some divestitures that will make the resultant combined company somewhat less huge than otherwise. But the wave of consolidation is upon us, and with this third offer in a few days, the sand castles on the shore have started dissolving.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
