|
The sale
of Dow Jones to Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp. global
media giant would diminish the news quality and
integrity of the Wall Street Journal and other Dow Jones
publications and Internet services, as well as the
independence of a leading national editorial voice.
The
brand name, the major asset of Dow Jones, is based upon
its reputation for, and daily practice of, accurate,
objective and reliable business news reporting. It is
this journalistic integrity that has created and will
continue to create shareholder value. It would be
damaged if Rupert Murdoch takes over Dow Jones.
In
recent interviews about his offer, Murdoch said, “We are
the sort of people with the same traditions that I think
will prove great guardians for the paper.”
That is
not true. The Bancroft family tradition, since Clarence
Barron bought Dow Jones in 1902, has been to hire
first-rate managers and editors and let them run the
company without family interference in editorial
opinions or news coverage. The family influence on
business decisions is exercised through its
representatives on the Dow Jones board of directors.
Rupert
Murdoch comes from a very different tradition of
Australian-British media ownership and editorial
practice. He has long expressed his political and
business biases through his newspapers and television
channels. We see this every day in his New York Post,
which regularly runs biased news stories and headlines
supporting his friends and public policies or attacking
people he personally opposes. His Fox News Channel, run
by former Republican Party strategist Roger Ailes, is a
unique example in American broadcasting in which one
man’s political opinions have become the editorial and
news policy of a national news channel.
I defend
Murdoch’s rights of free speech and press freedom. But I
also defend the American journalistic tradition of a
strict separation between political opinions expressed
vigorously on editorial pages and news reported with as
much factual objectivity as possible.
This is
not an abstract principle. The unusual independence and
high standards of journalism practiced at Dow Jones
attract and motivate many of the nation’s best reporters
and editors. Investors and business and government
leaders rely on its accurate and unbiased reports. This
is Dow Jones’s major asset—which Murdoch’s proposed
ownership would threaten.
When
Rupert Murdoch’s business and news interests conflict,
his business interests usually prevail. There is a clear
conflict between his business interest in News Corp.’s
Star TV broadcasts into the huge China market, where he
has had to kowtow to government censorship, and the
sharp criticism of Chinese violations of human rights,
religious liberty and free speech that the Journal’s
editorial page has published. I doubt that freedom to
criticize the Chinese government would continue under
Murdoch’s ownership.
I am
opposed to Murdoch buying Dow Jones to boost his
personal prestige and global media business control, or
acquiring the Dow Jones brand because he needs it for
his new business news channel to succeed. A takeover
would add to the concentration of American and global
media ownership, which is already too great, and which
exercises too much political influence on American
society and government decision-making. The Economist
describes Murdoch’s pursuit of Dow Jones as “the media
equivalent of a trophy wife.”
Dow
Jones publishes one of only three high-quality,
national-impact newspapers still controlled by original
family owners (the others are the New York Times and The
Washington Post). They produce the best journalism
because they are public companies controlled by families
who protect their independence and high standards. News
Corp. has a different agenda.
Murdoch
promises editorial independence and no interference in
news judgments if he were owner of Dow Jones. He has
made but not always kept such promises before. And News
Corp. is not a good long-term owner of Dow Jones.
Murdoch, who is 76, has a history of disagreements with
his sons, and arguments over ownership control and
management influence among his children are inevitable.
Finally,
there is no reason to sell Dow Jones. It is in a much
better business and financial position than it was after
the Internet market bubble burst in 2000 and a national
decline in newspaper advertising cut its revenue and
earnings. Its new and younger business and news
management team is taking the company into the Internet
age of information distribution. Dow Jones is strong
financially and doing better than most publishing
companies.
The
important question should not be whether the right price
is $60 a share for Dow Jones. The important question is:
Why should Dow Jones be sold to anyone? It is not
necessary for any internal business reason. The
controlling shareholders of Dow Jones should answer News
Corp.’s unsolicited offer by saying: “Dow Jones is not
for sale, at any price, to Rupert Murdoch.”
Jim
Ottaway Jr. retired in 2003 as senior vice president of
Dow Jones and chairman of Ottaway Newspapers. He retired
in April 2006 from the Dow Jones board after 17 years as
a director. He owns or has voting power over 6.2 percent
of Dow Jones Class B supervoting shares. |
