" style="float: left; margin: 0 10px 10px 0;" />

The madding crowd of those opposed to Rupert Murdoch obtaining Dow Jones are no doubt disappointed today, as the Pearson/GE counteroffer--which, among the competing bids, real or rumored, seemed to have the greatest potential, has fallen through. The Tribune's Phil Rosenthal has probably captured the anti-Murdoch camp correctly with his headline: "Dow Jones suitors lack the soul for a fight."

Yeah, okay. Obviously, what's central to most peoples' desire to see Murdoch fail is this overall belief that Murdoch would be Bad For Independent Journalism and that someone should come along and Do The Right Thing and Save The Day. On the former point, it can be (and has been) argued that Murdoch's history in the news biz makes the threat of a degraded, water-carrying Wall Street Journal a plausible--perhaps, even likely--outcome. But the latter notion, that some entity is going to come to save the day purely out of chivalry, is demonstrably naive.

It's unlikely that Pearson or GE briefly got into the Dow fray because of some lofty sense of altruism. Indeed, their motivations are fairly easily divined--Pearson saw a possibility of eliminating some competition, and GE recognized an opportunity to save its CNBC brand. Pearson's precarious financial footing had more to do with the bid falling through, not the state of their fighting spirit. Sure, there's no doubt that if Pearson had this morning defeated Rupert and obtained the Dow for themselves, there'd be some company spokesmodel singing a sweet ballad about how they saved the Wall Street Journal in the name of Doing the Right Thing. That tune could then serve as the soundtrack to the massive staff gutting that would have inevitably ensued.

It's pretty to think that Murdoch will be defeated because of kindness and principles and adorable kittens, but it looks like Ron Burkle may be the only person left who may be willing to go broke for a good cause. In fact, the very editors whose independence so many observers want to see salvaged have been given plenty of reasons to favor Murdoch's overtures. CJR offers a pretty comprehensive view of the matter, observing that "though many of [the top WSJ editors] fear News Corp. would wreck their paper...they also own stock and options that suddenly have a lot of additional value."

CJR also takes note of a leaked early draft of the Bancrofts' "Murdoch defense plan", which includes specific mentions about job protection, and raises a fundamental point:

An editor or publisher being guaranteed a job in writing is both good and bad. It's good in that it means you are free to cover the deal without worrying about antagonizing future bosses. It's bad in that it gives you an incentive to favor a sale, and to News Corp., and not to another party. No sale means you keep your job, but without a guarantee.

And what's a hero to do if turns out the damsel in distress prefers to remain tied to her golden train tracks?

Related
Agency Problems at Dow Jones and the WSJ [CJR]
Murdoch in sight of Dow Jones [FT]
Dow Jones suitors lack the soul for a fight [Chicago Tribune]

Previously, on Eat The Press:
We Must Destroy The Wall Street Journal In Order To Save It

Comments for this post are now closed