Media Curmudgeon

« April 2007 | Main | June 2007 »

May 31, 2007

The Bancrofts Will Sell To Murdoch

Enough of the Bancroft family, the members of which own 52 percent of the voting stock of Dow Jones & Co., owner of the Wall Street Journal, will vote to sell a controlling interest to Rupert Murdoch’s New Corp. by the end of this year.

I’m betting that Murdoch will sweeten and restructure the deal. He’s offered about $5 billion, or $64 per share, which is a big premium over the current stock price of $53.31, which is a huge jump over $36.28 as of May 1, when Murdoch made his offer. He’ll offer more and structure the deal so that the Bancrofts don’t get cash, but get a piece of News Corp. or a separate tracking stock of a new Dow Jones & Company (a smart lawyer friend of mine suggested this would be the best move).

With this kind of a deal, the Bancrofts wouldn’t have to pay capital gains taxes and would get around $5 billion in stock in a company that is sure to grow a lot more than the current Dow Jones & Company stock, which is mired deep in the mud. Poor management has stalled the company and its crown jewel, the Wall Street Journal.

The Bancrofts are absentee owners and have been living grandly off of money coming from a declining asset. They may not be too swift, but I doubt that all of the members of the family are so dumb that they don’t see the writing on the wall. They’ll sell by the end of the year.

And when Murdoch takes control of the Wall Street Journal, will he change it? I think the changes will be so minor that the average reader won’t notice it. If I’m wrong on either count, I’ll buy you lunch.

Posted by Charles Warner at 05:03 PM | Comments (2) | Print |

Media Curmudgeon at June 1, 2007 11:25 AM writes:

---

Paul Talbot at June 1, 2007 11:15 AM writes:

---

May 25, 2007

Funny Times

I have been ranting lately about the sorry state of journalism, especially on television. After reading over several of my recent blogs, I realized I may be sounding too cynical and humorless--taking myself too seriously.

This notion was reinforced when I read the results of some research that indicated that the majority of young people 18-24 get their news from "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" and "The Colbert Report," which we all knew, but it was nice to get it confirmed. The most interesting thing about the research indicated that "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" were more credible than main-stream television news. Again, not surprising.

My wife, Julia, and I love the two Comedy Central programs and they are the only two television programs we regularly watch together. She often watches "The Sopranos" and "Big Love" and I often view "Bill Moyers Journal."

However, to keep my sanity, my favorite publication is The Funny Times, which I receive monthly. Here's the cover of the latest issue, which I think is a perfect comment on the current state of the media:

Cartoons in the current issue poke brilliant fun at marriage, gay marriage, gardening, the Iraq war, McCain, Bush, Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, and college graduates, among many others. And like Playboy, the articles are great--really funny, including one by Dave Barry.

So this is an unashamed plug for The Funny Times. To subscribe, go to its website, FunnyTimes.com. You'll love it--like the cartoon below.

Posted by Charles Warner at 09:49 AM | Comments (2) | Print |

Media Curmudgeon at June 15, 2007 01:53 PM writes:

---

Ham Khan at June 15, 2007 01:39 PM writes:

---

May 17, 2007

Pinwheel Williams

In 1908 Walter Williams founded the world’s first journalism school at the University of Missouri. He wrote a creed that was to be the mission of the J School and it has been used for almost 100 years to train and inspire aspiring journalists.

Below is the Walter Williams creed. Please read it carefully and as you do, keep in mind the newspaper, magazine, or television or radio network and their reporters from which you get your news. See if your favorite news sources and journalists live up to any or all of the principles Williams espouses.

“I believe in the profession of journalism.

I believe that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of their responsibility, trustees for the public; that acceptance of a lesser service than the public service is betrayal of this trust.

I believe that clear thinking and clear statement, accuracy and fairness are fundamental to good journalism.

I believe that a journalist should write only what he holds in his heart to be true.

I believe that suppression of the news, for any consideration other than the welfare of society, is indefensible.

I believe that no one should write as a journalist what he would not say as a gentleman; that bribery by one's own pocketbook is as much to be avoided as bribery by the pocketbook of another; that individual responsibility may not be escaped by pleading another's instructions or another's dividends.

I believe that advertising, news and editorial columns should alike serve the best interests of readers; that a single standard of helpful truth and cleanness should prevail for all; that the supreme test of good journalism is the measure of its public service.

I believe that the journalism which succeeds best—and best deserves success—fears God and honors Man; is stoutly independent, unmoved by pride of opinion or greed of power, constructive, tolerant but never careless, self-controlled, patient, always respectful of its readers but always unafraid, is quickly indignant at injustice; is unswayed by the appeal of privilege or the clamor of the mob; seeks to give every man a chance and, as far as law and honest wage and recognition of human brotherhood can make it so, an equal chance; is profoundly patriotic while sincerely promoting international good will and cementing world-comradeship; is a journalism of humanity, of and for today's world.”

What do you think the state of journalism is today? I think that Walter Williams must be turning over like a pinwheel in his grave in sadness. I have rewritten Williams’ creed so that it fits more closely with what I believe is the current state of the media, especially television:

“I believe that anyone and everyone can be a journalist.

I believe that the public journal is an opportunity to gain fame and make as much money as possible; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of their responsibility, out for their own gain; that acceptance of a lesser service than devotion to profit is betrayal of this trust.

I believe that clear thinking and clear statement, accuracy and fairness play second fiddle to self-promotion and greed.

I believe that a journalist should write only what he or she holds in his or her heart to be good for his or her career.

I believe that suppression of the news, for any consideration other than the welfare of society, depends on what those in power in the government want so I can have access to them.

I believe that no one should write as a journalist what he would not say as a charlatan; that bribery by one's own pocketbook is good business practice in order to beat the competition; that individual responsibility can be escaped by pleading another's instructions or another's dividends.

I believe that advertising, news and editorial columns should alike serve the best interests of advertisers; that a single standard of helpful truth and cleanness should prevail for all advertisers and those in power; that the supreme test of good journalism is the measure of its profit.

I believe that the journalism which succeeds best—and best deserves success—beats the competition, panders to the masses, is motivated by pride of opinion and greed of power, is destructive, intolerant and always careless, self-controlled, impatient, always respectful of its advertisers but always afraid of advertising cancelling; is quickly indignant at partisan sniping; is swayed by the appeal of privilege or the clamor of the mob; seeks to give every man a chance to win money and, as far as law can make it so, a slim chance; is profoundly patriotic while sincerely promoting itself and destroying world-comradeship; is a journalism of profit, of and for today's media owners.”

Exempt from the above screed are NPR, PBS, The Nation, Washington Monthly, Media Matters for America , Talking Points Memo, and others that are not doing what they do primarily for profit. What do you think? Would you like to add any media to the good-guys list?

Posted by Charles Warner at 08:27 PM | Comments (4) | Print |

Media Curmudgeon at May 22, 2007 12:27 PM writes:

---

Media Curmudgeon at May 22, 2007 12:20 PM writes:

---

Media Curmudgeon at May 22, 2007 12:15 PM writes:

---

Paul Talbot at May 19, 2007 09:05 AM writes:

---

May 16, 2007

Fox News Text Poll

For the Republican presidential candidates' debate Wednesday night, Fox News conducted an "American Idol"-like poll that encouraged people to vote via mobile phone text message as to what candidate they thought had won.

Here's the result:

29% - Mitt Romney
25% - Ron Paul
19% - Rudy Giuliani
9% - Mike Hukabee
5% - Duncan Hunter
4% - John McCain
3% - Tom Tancredo
1% - Sam Brownbeck
0% - Jim Gilmore
0% - Tommy Thompson

About 40,000 people voted, but what does it mean?

First, those who are likely to vote via text message are probably younger--those in the "American Idol" generation, with about the same depth. Thus, it is reasonable that the best-looking candidate won, that the only Republican anti-war candidate came in second, and that the only Republican pro-choice candidate came in third. All the others were probably within the margin of error and thus tied for last.

I wonder how McCain feels being in the margin for error?

Posted by Charles Warner at 02:31 PM | Comments (0) | Print |

Fox News Debate

On Wednesday evening, May 15, 2007, the Fox News channel broadcast the third debate, featuring Republican candidates for president. To my surprise, Fox News did a much better job of producing the debates than MSNBC did on the first two debates, especially the second debate.

I find it ironic that the Democratic candidates declined to appear on Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News cable channel because of their perception that Fox News is biased in favor of the Bush administration and conservative ideologies, when in actuality Fox News was less biased than MSNBC on the second debate coverage. Brian Williams, the NBC “Nightly News” anchor, was the moderator for the first debate among the Democrats broadcast on MSNBC and he did a workmanlike job, displaying an appropriate gravitas and expertise—his questions were good.

(An aside here—I called Brian Williams an “anchor,” a term I don’t like. I prefer “presenter,” which the British use. The BBC calls the people who read its news, news presenters, which makes sense. One meaning for anchor is something heavy that weighs you down, which might be appropriate for Katie Couric, but not for Brian Williams.)

However, the second MSNBC debate featuring the Republican candidates from the conservative hallowed ground of the Ronald Regan Presidential Library, was a train wreck, as Neil Derrough indicated in a Media Curmudgeon blog dated May 6, 2007. The hosts for that debate were conservative interrupter Chris Matthews, who dominated an uncharacteristically meek Keith Olbermann, the liberal counterbalance, who looked like a deer caught in headlights. Some of their questions were relevant, but others were silly, like Matthews asking the candidates to raise their hands if they agreed with several issues, which had nothing to do with debating—it made the candidates look like they were in a classroom raising their hands when asked if they had to go to the bathroom. It was about Matthews trying to be cute, not about debating the issues.

In contrast, Fox News had serious, experienced journalists asking intelligent, relevant, informed questions. Sad sack Brit Hume, Fox News’ managing editor, did a good job of keeping everyone on time and Chris Wallace and Wendall Goler asked excellent questions. Chris Wallace, the host of “Fox News Sunday,” is the son of CBS correspondent Mike Wallace and worked at CBS’s WBBM-TV as a reporter in the 1970s when blog poster Neil Derrough was the V.P., general manager of the station—a minor bit of trivia that adds to both Derrough’s and Wallace’s credibility. Wendall Goler is Fox News’ White House correspondent and the only black person to ask questions in any of the debates. Good for the conservative Fox News to be the only network to show a commitment to diversity—imagine that. And shame on MSNBC for being all-white and male.

It will be interesting to see how CNN handles the next debate among Democratic candidates and if moderator Wolf Blitzer can do as good and as an impartial a job as the usually partial Brit Hume did. We’ll see if the CNN questioners reflect diversity and can ask intelligent questions that are more about the issues than the questioners themselves, something the confrontational Blitzer has not shown a propensity for in the past.

Posted by Charles Warner at 02:22 PM | Comments (1) | Print |

Bruce Braun at May 17, 2007 01:29 PM writes:

---

May 10, 2007

Who’s Barking Now?

The irascible Chicago columnist Mike Royko wrote that the relationship between a reporter and a politician should be the same as that of a barking dog to a chicken thief. As Bill Moyers reported on his April 25th PBS program titled “Buying the War,” none of the main-stream media (MSM) except the Knight-Ridder newspapers were barking when the Bush administration lied to the world about WMD and led us into the disastrous war in Iraq—and that included the New York Times, the Washington Post, and all the major television networks. If the MSM won’t bark at chicken thieves, who will? Who should we count on to fulfill the watchdog function of the press when the press is asleep?

One answer was in evidence when Media Matters for America called attention to Don Imus’ notorious “nappy-headed hos” comment. Imus has been uttering insulting racist, sexist, and homophobic remarks on the air for over 30 years, so his remark about the Rutgers women’s basketball team was nothing new. What was new was that his offensiveness was widely distributed—people other than his regular listeners and viewers and frequent guests became aware of his meanness. When people began protesting, advertisers bailed out and CBS and NBC canned Imus. But the advertisers knew what Imus was all about and the only reason they jumped ship because a watchdog started barking.

Today the watchdog function of the press is being performed by blogs and websites, such as Media Matters for America. For example, a team at Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo did excellent investigative work and broke the story about the politically motivated Federal prosecutors firings at the Justice Department and Attorney General Gonzales’ unbelievable incompetence. A bunch of bloggers looked into Dan Rather’s claims about George Bush’s Air National Guard service and found the evidence was forged, and Rather retired early.

The MSM is becoming less relevant, less credible, more lowest-common-denominator junk day by day, especially television. Anyone who wants to know what’s really happening and who’s stealing chickens, should go to the Web; depend on such sources as Media Matters for America, Talking Points Memo, The Huffington Post, The Nation, or The Washington Monthly, and, yes, the NY Times online and the Washington Post online. Even though the last two newspapers were asleep and didn’t bark at Bush on Iraq, these newspapers have learned the errors of their ways and generally perform the watchdog function of the press—often following up on malfeasance reported on blogs.

Of course you noticed that all the sources I mentioned are considered progressive or liberal. Except for the NY Times and the Washington Post, all the others mentioned did not support Bush’s Iraq war—they got that right. On the other hand, you can read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal or, better, watch Bill O’Reilly on the Fox News Channel where you’ll get a dog who makes love to the chickens.

Posted by Charles Warner at 10:49 PM | Comments (2) | Print |

Media Curmudgeon at May 11, 2007 12:24 PM writes:

---

Media Curmudgeon at May 11, 2007 12:20 PM writes:

---

May 06, 2007

The Republican Debates

Neil Derrough, former president of the CBS Television Station Division, writes:

"I am somewhat surprised that I haven’t heard much of an outcry about the so-called Republican debate on MSNBC the other night. Most media organizations have been pretty quiet about it. A fuss should be made.

At this point, I’m not so much concerned about what was said by the candidates. However, I do have some real concerns about the format design and the role of the moderators. First, the annoying trivia oriented questions were just foolish. Because there were no established ground rules about the questioning, it was left it up to the moderators to use their judgment. Their judgment, I strongly believe, was tainted by a partisan point of view. I submit no fair-minded journalist could come away from this exhibition and feel that there had been an evenhanded and thoughtful discussion of the important issues that confront us. Time constraints for sure, but still no excuse.

Every effort should be made to keep the debate process as free of political slant as possible. To do anything else contaminates the process. To hand over the moderator job to cable columnist that has a clear political point of view, jeopardizes any real sense of fairness.

These first debates are much like the NFL exhibition season, a lot of people getting ready for the real season. Let’s hope so, because the audience will grow in size and interest. They deserve a far more serious and professional effort in the future."

I agree, of course, and Neil has written better than I could have. The main-stream-media has been quiet about the travesty of the Republican debates, but the blogsphere has not. I read one blog that said of Chris Matthews, the obnoxious, constantly interrupting moderator, that he asked reasonably intelligent questions but never let anyone answer them.

Matthews, like most self-absorbed, ego-centered media personalities, believed the events were about him, that he was the center of the universe, that the focus should be on him, not the debaters or the guests on his MSNBC program. The media is to be blamed, of course, for creating the talk-show format that attracts these attention-craving personalities. The personalities do what they are hired and have a compulsion to do--talk. As the format requires, they talk instead of listening. Perhaps the media would get more intelligent programs and less neurotic hosts if they called the programs listen shows.

Posted by Charles Warner at 01:42 PM | Comments (2) | Print |

Bruce Braun at May 7, 2007 03:16 PM writes:

---

Media Curmudgeon at May 7, 2007 02:35 PM writes:

---

May 05, 2007

Corporate Vs. Family Media

The unions involved with the Wall Street Journal don’t want the Bancroft family to sell Dow Jones to Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. Of course not, union members want their automatic pay raises every year regardless of individual performance. The union wants the majority owners, the Bancroft family, to continue to fund annual pay increases in the face of revenue and profit declines.

The argument against selling is that the sale would be bad for journalism (merely conjecture). The “bad-for-journalism” argument is, excuse the pun, a paper tiger. What the unions and other naysayers are really saying is that a sale to Murdoch might be financially bad for the union and financially good for the owners, but the owners should be willing to deplete their wealth on principle—the privilege of ownership.

Let’s see how much that privilege would cost. For example’s sake only, let’s say the Dow Jones Company is worth $1,000 today. Let’s assume that all costs for the company (labor costs, technology costs, newsprint costs, etc.) raise a modest three percent a year (an amount no union would be satisfied with and does not keep up with inflation) and that revenue declines three percent a year. That would mean a six percent decline in the company’s value, so that at the end of the year, the company is worth only $940. In 16 years and eight months the company would be worth nothing.

Now let’s look at families that have not been willing to support newspapers that have declining profitability and those families that have been willing. The Binghams of the Louisville Journal weren’t willing—they sold to Gannett in 1986. The Chandlers of the Los Angeles Times weren’t willing—they sold to the Tribune Company in 2000. The Sulzbergers of the New York Times have been willing, the Grahams of the Washington Post have been willing, and Rupert Murdoch has been willing. Murdoch loses an estimated $40 million a year on the New York Post, but he keeps it operating. You may not like the paper, but it does provide an alternative voice to the establishment New York Times and the Daily News. Murdoch grew up in the newspaper business in Australia and owns several newspapers, including the Times of London, and he takes some pride in ownership, a pride he's willing to pay for.

Who would you bet on keeping a declining newspaper going, the Bancroft family, who haven’t taken an active role in the ownership of Dow Jones in decades, or Murdoch, who seems to love the newspaper business? What other company would be willing to pay what Wall Street and rational investors think is an outrageous premium for Dow Jones—Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Time Warner, Gannett? Shareholders of these companies would toss out management if they even considered paying as much as Murdoch is offering for Dow Jones, and rightfully so.

The only way to keep the newspaper business pure and untainted from the profit motive, is for some generous savior with virtually unlimited wealth and no profit pressure due to public ownership—Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, e.g.—to buy a newspaper and put its ownership into a non-profit foundation and have the foundation support its losses if there are any. This model works for the St. Petersburg Times, owned by the Poynter Institute, set up by the late Nelson Poynter, who owned the paper. The model works for NPR. The future of newspapers is either with large corporate owners such as Murdoch’s News Corp. that can leverage their brands and assets. Or with eeleomosynary foundations using an NPR model of community support (voluntary subscription fees) and underwriting instead of advertising.

I may be one of many people who contribute more to my local NPR station than I pay for access to the Wall Street Journal Online, so I and others might pay more for the WSJ if we had to. Such a model might work; however, I think I’d rather pay what I do now and have Murdoch own the WSJ, which I might like. Murdoch is quoted as saying he wouldn’t change it much, although he did say some of its articles are too long—he couldn’t finish them. I agree, but of course I’m almost as old as he is, so it might be a matter of age.

Posted by Charles Warner at 11:42 AM | Comments (0) | Print |

May 03, 2007

Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal Bid

Rupert Murdoch, on behalf of his News Corporation, bid $5 billion for the Dow Jones & Company, which owns the Wall Street Journal.

The press and the blogsphere have been going nuts with speculation: Is the Murdoch bid a good or a bad thing for journalism? What will a Murdoch Wall Street Journal look like if the Bancroft family, who own a majority of the Dow Jones voting stock, agree to sell? If the Bancrofts don’t sell, will Murdoch go away?

The last question first: No, Murdock and the News Corporation’s bid will not go away. Murdoch is the most brilliant corporate media strategist in the world and he knows exactly what he is doing. He’s as patient as he is smart; so he’ll wait. Even though many members of the family don’t want to sell to Murdoch as a matter of pride and many WSJ employees are terrified that their big-J Journalism integrity and independence will be compromised by selling to Murdoch, my advice to them is, “Get over it.”

The second question: A Murdoch Wall Street Journal newspaper (you know, that thing that kids call a “dinosaur blog”) will look and read virtually the same as the newspaper is now. It will probably have more resources and foreign bureaus. Murdoch is not only smart, he’s a long-term thinker. He’ll expand the WSJ’s reach globally slowly, prudently, and relentlessly. Murdoch has proven with his purchase of MySpace and SkyTV that he’s a visionary—he sees profit potential far into the future.

There are many things Murdoch can do when he controls the WSJ: First, he can combine some non-journalistic functions such as circulation, accounting, HR, etc. with the New York Post. The Post is losing about $40 million a year and by combing appropriate functions he can save money at both operations, or he could sell the Post and stop the bleeding. Next, he can not only eventually give an enormous boost to the credibility and resources of his new Fox Business Channel but also hurt its biggest competitor, CNBC, which has a partnership with the WSJ—a perfect double whammy (Dow Jones has a contract with CNBC that runs until 2012, but Murdoch can wait or afford to buy CNBC out.)

Third, Murdoch can improve the WSJ’s website dramatically and make it much more profitable and do some effective cross promoting among WSJ Online, My Space, Fox News, the soon-to-be-launched Fox Business News, and MarketWatch.com, which is one of the most highly trafficked financial websites and which Down Jones owns.

Next, cross-platform selling is beginning to take off and News Corporation would have an awesome number of brand-name, high-traffic, big-audience assets to bundle together to sell advertisers and their agencies who are eager for cross-platform deals in order to cut down the time-consuming complexity of buying advertising in a fragmented media environment.

The final question I asked: Is the Murdoch bid a good or a bad thing for journalism? But this elicits another question, “what is journalism today?” I remember when the legendary CBS News correspondent, Eric Sevareid, gave a speech in which he said, “I don’t know if I’m in the news business or the business of news.” The speech was in the 1960s, long before the fateful summer of 1986 when Larry Tish bought CBS and GE bought NBC and both new owners dictated that the news divisions had to make a profit, an unthinkable concept before that time. After 1986, there were no more doubts that news was a public trust; it was a business that had to make a profit.

Journalists who think that being a business—making a profit—doesn’t come first, especially in public companies, are living in the 1960s. Grow up, get used to it. Murdoch’s $60-per-share offer is a whopping 15 times estimated 2007 earnings, which is much higher than the average 8 to 10 times valuation for newspaper companies, according to Media Daily News.

The Bancroft family is not involved in running the WSJ anymore and they are out of touch with reality if they think anyone else will buy the company for anything near what Murdoch will pay. Eventually the family will come to the realization that newspaper stock prices are declining rapidly and that they better take Murdoch’s offer before the company is worth a quarter of what he’s offering.

No company but News Corporation has the assets that have such a good strategic fit and as many possibilities as News Corp. No one else will be nuts enough (or smart enough) to pay $5 billion dollars. The Bancroft’s will take the money and run eventually. If they are smart, they’ll take cash and News Corp. stock, which will appreciate. My advice to the journalists at the WSJ who are whining: Buy News Corp. stock, that way you’ll do well no matter what happens.

Posted by Charles Warner at 01:31 AM | Comments (3) | Print |

Media Curmudgeon at May 3, 2007 01:05 PM writes:

---

JNCatlett at May 3, 2007 09:33 AM writes:

---

Paul Talbot at May 3, 2007 08:54 AM writes:

---

May 01, 2007

More on "After Imus"

Bruce Braun writes:

Great insight on your "After Imus" post.

It reminded me of a similar time in the early-mid 1990's with all of the shock TV shows like Springer, Lake, Montiel, Sally Jesse et. al.

These shows had berths on O&O TV stations and were generating significant audiences and the attendant revenues. For the most part, even though they were on the air 60 minutes a day, five days a
week...the advertisers rarely if ever watched those slime merchants.
Think about it...the agencies and clients spending money in those shows (as with Imus et. al) are at work when the shows air. It wasn't until some crossed the "line" that the ratings and advertisers departed.

Why do these types of TV and radio shows seemingly fly under the sponsor radar? In my experience it gets down to a number of factors:

1. Media buyers 90 percent of the time make the primary buying criteria based on cost-per-thousand or cost-per-rating point. If it's efficient and fits into a predetermined CPM criteria, they will buy the show. Editorial content is way down the list.

2. Most media planners and buyers are within the target demo of the objectionable shows. To these folks it is still a frat boy/girl, college humor mentality. Many buyersI dealt with thought these shows were great theater!

3. Very few clients scrutinize a media buy beyond CPM-type criteria. If the agency can get the CPM way down, then client thinks the buy is a good one.

4. "Doing the right thing" is not part of the decision process with the aforementioned folks. If doing the right thing was a criteria, the shows we are talking about would either never get on the air or would be gone in a month due to lack of advertiser support.

The only time advertisers flee a crappy show is if there is an Imus- type scandal or the ratings fall apart. At the end of the day, most advertisers would rather not know what is going on with the morons on
these programs. Think Rosie and her rantings about 9/11 being a US
government plot! Is that the sort of editorial environment any reasonable or rational brand manager wants to associate his product with?

Posted by Charles Warner at 01:47 PM | Comments (0) | Print |