With redesigned Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch launches old-fashioned newspaper war against NYT

[DeepModem Mom]

Newsweek: Murdoch, Ink.
With a redesigned Wall Street Journal, mogul Rupert Murdoch is launching an old-fashioned newspaper war against The New York Times. Not since William Randolph Hearst took on Joseph Pulitzer have we seen such a fight.
By Johnnie L. Roberts
Apr 28, 2008 Issue

....This week the Murdochian Era of the Proper Newspaperman has its debut. When readers open their newspapers Monday morning, they will discover a Wall Street Journal fashioned to the tastes of the man who revolutionized media markets from Australia to North America. With its increased focus on politics, international news, culture and sports, Murdoch's reconceived Journal represents nothing short of a formal declaration of war on that most venerable of journalistic institutions, The New York Times. Not since William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal challenged Joseph Pulitzer's New York World in the late 19th century has there been such a clash of newspaper titans. As was the case when Hearst took on Pulitzer, Murdoch—the son of an Australian journalist—still believes newspapers are the most influential media for shaping the public discourse, even in this new-media century. The fight could escalate in unknown ways if billionaire New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg ends up acquiring the Times. As NEWSWEEK has learned, top associates of the onetime information executive are encouraging him to do just that.

It isn't hard to guess which role Murdoch will play in this fight. Caricatured as the heir to Hearst's brand of yellow journalism, he was pilloried in much of the "respectable" press when he made his $5 billion, $65-a-share bid for Dow Jones last spring. Journalistic purists bellowed that he would sully the Journal with a mix of sensationalism and self-interested editorializing. But Murdoch presumably knows it would be idiocy to destroy the Journal brand (this is a flamethrower who appears to know the difference between scorching something and giving it sizzle). The new Journal is as respectable, restrained and readable as it has ever been—but with a broader world view designed to appeal to audiences well beyond its traditional, pin-striped base. But is that what Journal readers want?

To understand why the 77-year-old Murdoch has been itching for this particular fight, look no further than the mogul's three passions: print, power and respect. Using his knowledge of the first (he started his empire when his father bequeathed him Australia's Adelaide News when he was 22), Murdoch achieved the second. As for respect? Well, that's been more elusive, bestowed only grudgingly by those who simultaneously respect, detest and envy him. Murdoch has assembled one of the globe's biggest media empires, a conglomerate valued at $60 billion that will one day pass to his six children and seems destined to be run by his younger son, James. Critics like to paint Murdoch as a Machiavellian barbarian bent on world domination. So acquiring the venerable Wall Street Journal and then dethroning the nation's newspaper of record? Now that's something to bring a man respect.

The timing for Murdoch couldn't be better. With News Corp.'s deep pockets, he is attacking the Gray Lady at a moment of incredible vulnerability. Along with much of the rest of old media, the Times has been losing advertising dollars to the Internet hand over fist, though its Web site is a big hit with readers. Late last week its parent company reported a first-quarter loss of $335,000; the Times's own business section said it was "one of the worst periods the company and the newspaper industry have seen." Advertising, its lifeblood, fell almost 11 percent, "the sharpest drop in memory," the Times wrote. The newspaper is currently seeking to chop its staff by 100 through a voluntary buyout, and the cost-cutting isn't likely to abate in the months and years ahead. By contrast, Murdoch has been letting the spending flow at the Journal—beefing up its Washington bureau, seeking additional printing capacity and planning the launch of a glossy weekend magazine, WSJ., edited by Tina Gaudoin, a Brit who worked for the Murdoch-owned Times of London....

****

Can Murdoch really win this fight? Many media-industry watchers, journalists and communications experts argue that the Journal will never pose much of a threat to the Times's franchise. In fact, the changes could damage the Journal brand....But the same critics also warn that "it's never a good time to have to confront someone like Murdoch, who doesn't care about making money on a particular product," says newspaper analyst John Morton....

http://www.newsweek.com/id/132852/output/print

[Joe Chi Minh]

1. "So acquiring the venerable Wall Street Journal and then dethroning

the nation's newspaper of record? Now that's something to bring a man respect."

Well he did that when he bought the UK's Times and began selling it cheap - as much as to say, "Thunderer? I was always taught you get what you pay for...." Maybe it was a mistake not ennobling him! But respect? I don't think he enjoys much of that in the UK. Even among his louche business peers. But who knows how such people really think? Covetousness, after all, is their life-blood.

[DeepModem Mom]

2. I couldn't disagree more with that, from the article I posted. Why does he, an Australian...

want to come to this country and destroy what is, despite its many faults, an American institution? And as for the WSJ, I'm hearing from businesspeople that they're not too happy with Murdoch's cutting back on financial news. I wonder if this episode might be Rupert's first brush with failure.

[Joe Chi Minh]

3. Actually, I was just taken with what I suspect is its applicability to his

purchase of the Times in the UK.

Actually, I'm strongly inclined to agree with you with regard to his respect for the US. Some of it - what he sees of himself in its movers and shakers, perhaps - will be misdirected, but bad as he is, I don't think he's pusillanimous across the board (just money and power...) and perhaps recognises a certain general magnanimity in the US akin to Australia's. Difficult to put your finger on, really.

[DeepModem Mom]

4. Interesting!

You're right -- I've visited Australia and thought that country American-like in many ways. Also, I lived in the UK a few years and became familiar with Murdoch-owned media there. He's not all bad. The Times is okay, Sky News is okay (not Fox, that's for sure). And Murdoch at least loves newspapering, and funnels money into it (maybe alone in that regard these days).

Now he's saying he's interested in Obama as a candidate, and forecasting a Democratic victory.

I suppose we'll all just have to stand and wait and see what happens to the WSJ -- and what's next up Murdoch's sleeve.

[Joe Chi Minh]

5. I'm afraid the harm he does throughout the world is nevertheless monumental.

Oh, you can guarantee he wants to be in the good books of the winner.... and get the winner anxious to get in his good books. He makes and breaks the governments in the UK. The premiers have been terrified of him. He calls them, they go running to him. That's no exaggeration.

[DeepModem Mom]

6. Indeed. Who can measure the evil done this country by Fox News alone? nt

[Joe Chi Minh]

7. Precisely.