|
It’s
normally not good news when a company is the subject of
repeated stories on the front page of the Wall Street
Journal.
That
was driven home to the newspaper’s own reporters in
personal fashion Tuesday by the news that Rupert Murdoch
appeared to have succeeded in his monthlong quest to
take over Dow Jones & Co., the Journal’s parent company.
Reporters reacted bitterly to the prospect of Murdoch’s
gaining control of the Journal, which has long been
regarded as a beacon of financial journalism.
They
voiced concern that Murdoch would diminish the paper’s
quality, imbue it with some of the glitzy style of his
New York Post and slant the Journal’s news coverage to
advance his business interests.
“People are aghast that this could have happened,” said
one reporter, who like others spoke on condition on
anonymity. “It’s a sickening realization to know that
this really great iconic newspaper is [not only] no
longer going to be independent but is also going to be
controlled by a man whose values are inimical to ours.”
To
address such concerns, Dow Jones and Murdoch’s News
Corp.—which also owns 20th Century Fox, the Fox News
Channel and tabloid newspapers in Britain and
Australia—agreed to the creation of a committee to help
protect the newsroom from attempts to steer coverage
that relates to Murdoch’s interests.
The
panel could veto the firing or hiring of the Journal’s
top editorial executives, but some Journal writers have
said the committee wouldn’t be strong enough.
The
newsroom was particularly incensed by the detail,
disclosed on the Journal’s web site Tuesday, that Dow
Jones had agreed to pay the Bancroft family’s advisory
and legal fees related to the merger, which are
estimated at least $30 million.
The
journalists viewed the payment, which ultimately would
be made by Murdoch’s News Corp., as an improper
incentive for wavering family members to support the
deal.
“There’s a real feeling that this place covers the worst
in corporate behavior and our executives should have
known better,” one reporter said.
Journal reporters also voiced disappointment that Paul
Steiger, the paper’s long-time managing editor, did not
speak out against the News Corp. bid. Steiger, who
stepped down in May to become the paper’s
editor-at-large, could have rallied opposition to the
deal, they said.
“There’s a fair amount of anger and frustration at him,”
one reporter said.
Robert Christie, a Dow Jones spokesman, said it would be
inappropriate for Steiger, who is overseeing the paper’s
coverage of the News Corp. bid, to express any feelings
about the deal. “He’s in no position to comment
publicly,” Christie said.
Some
reporters took solace in the belief that the Journal,
which has been struck by a decline in ad revenue that is
afflicting the entire newspaper industry, might have
undertaken deep cost-cutting and layoffs had Murdoch and
his money not shown up.
Nevertheless, after years working their way up to a
major newspaper, some Journal reporters are reassessing
their careers.
“Everyone is sitting here talking about what their next
career will be—not their next journalism job, their next
career,” one reporter said.
Judging by comments on the Journal’s web site, many
readers aren’t looking forward to Murdoch’s ownership.
“If
the WSJ becomes anything as gaudy, sensational, or
inflammatory as Fox News, I’m never reading it again,”
one person wrote. “This is bad news for readers. My
sympathies go out to the WSJ staff.” (Los Angeles Times) |