Dow Jones Union, Unhappy With Frying Pan, Covets the Fire

I have great respect for the Dow Jones employees union, and used to be somewhat active in it during my time at Dow Jones in early Eighties. But I really think that the people running that union have taken leave of their senses.

Today comes word that the Dow Jones board met with a possible alternative to the dread Rupert Murdoch -- "Internet entrepreneur Brad Greenspan and supermarket mogul Ron Burkle" -- according to the usual "people familiar with the matter" quoted by the Wall Street Journal today.

What's grotesque is that these two individuals, who could very easily be far worse to the Wall Street Journal and the other properties than Murdoch ever could be, were brought to the table by the union representing Dow Jones editorial employees.

That is nothing short of amazing. Does the union, the Independent Assn. of Publishers Employees, have any idea what a Journal run by guys like Burkle and Greenspan would be like? I don't, and I shudder to think. As Peter Kann, the ex-Journal managing editor, told the Journal today:

, , , if the family is going to sell I see no point in pursuing industrial conglomerates, Internet entrepreneurs, supermarket magnates and real-estate developers. None know anything at all about journalism. As to Mr. Murdoch, at least he loves newspapers, presumably would invest in the WSJ and Dow Jones, and would seem to have little incentive to tarnish a trophy he has coveted for so long.

If IAPE wants to preserve the editorial independence of Dow Jones, it needs to oppose any buyer, not just any buyer whose name begins with "Rupert." This "anything but Rupert" strategy could very easily backfire, when (not if, when) the post-takeover layoffs begin.

If the person performing the layoffs is a supermarket or a vitamin or an Internet or a ladies-corset magnate, he could simply say, "I have to do this so that I could afford to save your blessed company from Rupert Murdoch."

Perhaps IAPE should take a train ride to Philadelphia one of these days, and think about what happens when amateurs buy newspapers. After the Philadelphia Inquirer was sold to local entrepreneurs, the aftermath included advertisements on the front page and plastering the name of a bank across the business section.

© 2007 Gary Weiss. All rights reserved.



-----------

Wall Street Versus America was published by Penguin USA on April 6.
Click here for its Amazon.com listing and here for more information on the book, from my web site, gary-weiss.com.

Journalists as Furniture

Talking Biz News reports today that Wall Street Journal reporters stayed out of work this morning. They're upset about slow progress in union contract talks, and of course upset by negotiations to sell the company to Rupert Murdoch.

The underlying rationale behind this move is that journalists matter to the functioning of a newspaper, and that the Journal's staff of first-class journalists is pretty nigh irreplaceable.

I therefore suggest that my colleagues at the Journal read the article by Ken Auletta in this week's New Yorker. I would suggest they read the fourth page of the online version. Auletta hearkens back to Murdoch's acquisition of a magazine where he was employed:

To try to forestall a Murdoch takeover of New York magazine thirty years ago, about forty writers and editors and art directors went on strike. I was at the magazine then, and, with delusions that I was on a diplomatic mission, led a small delegation to visit Murdoch’s outside counsel, Howard Squadron. I was certain that, once Murdoch understood that the staff would leave, he would retreat. Squadron listened politely, and replied, “You don’t understand. If you leave, Rupert will replace you like he replaces furniture.”

That sound you hear at World Financial Center is a moving van. Word is out today that the "editorial safeguards" hammered out between Dow Jones and Murdoch aren't safeguards at all.

UPDATE: The New York Times now says that the article to which I just linked, which says that Murdoch would have power to hire and fire editors, is inoperative. In a kind of non-correction correction, the Times says that power would reside in an independent board.

© 2007 Gary Weiss. All rights reserved.

-----------

Wall Street Versus America was published by Penguin USA on April 6.
Click here for its Amazon.com listing and here for more information on the book, from my web site, gary-weiss.com.

Dow Jones Surrender Negotiations Continue

Bancroft family members en route to buyout talks

Press reports suggest that the Bancroft family is "warming" to Rupert Murdoch's takeover offer, with the Washington Post saying "the family will tell the company's board of directors it can start negotiating a sale price" if Murdoch "can assure the family owners of Dow Jones that he will not meddle in the news coverage of the Wall Street Journal."

Translation: the surrender negotiations are picking up steam.

As part of its face-saving effort to salvage some dignity out of this capitulation, the Bancrofts are making a new proposal today to guarantee "editorial independence" at the Journal.

This is such utter nonsense. Even if they come up with a way to keep Murdoch from interfering with the day-to-day operations of the paper, he still controls the purse strings and it is absurd to believe that his wishes will not be heeded. Columbia Journalism Review made that oft-repeated and obvious point again today.

The newspaper's union, meanwhile, is telling its members something they know already, which is that their jobs are in jeopardy.

La lucha continua, but is endinga soona.

© 2007 Gary Weiss. All rights reserved.

-----------

Wall Street Versus America was published by Penguin USA on April 6.
Click here for its Amazon.com listing and here for more information on the book, from my web site, gary-weiss.com.

The Dow Jones Union Steps In

One of the more surprising aspects of Rupert Murdoch's bid for Dow Jones is the role of the employee union, the Independent Assn. of Publishers' Employees. The New York Times today explores how IAPE "is shopping around for another bidder and has begun talks with aides to Ronald W. Burkle, a California billionaire."

It was expected that IAPE would galvanize employee opposition to the takeover, but IAPE's emergence as a player is new and impressive. It is also a far cry from the IAPE of old -- the IAPE I knew when I worked at Barron's in the 1980s.

Back then, this was a weak, divided, rather impotent force in dealing with the company. There was very little participation, apart from malcontents and hotheads like myself. While the idea of an employee union is theoretically a good one, it hasn't worked out too well in the newspaper biz, partly because journalists are more interested in cutting individual deals with their employers than standing together in Leninist solidarity.

I say "Leninist" deliberately. Our union leader back in the early 1980s was a lovable but rigid British-born Marxist. His heart was in the right place but the membership was not behind him.

Today, no doubt to the dismay of management, IAPE seems far stronger and also is affiliated with the AFL-CIO, which it wasn't in the old days.

I doubt that anything will come of the Burkle thing, and I have no doubt that Rupert is going to systematically crush this union when (not if, when) he takes over the company. Still, this is brave showing and I am proud of my former colleagues for standing up to the Murdoch Tsunami. Hope they all have life vests.

I'm also proud of the Wall Street Journal for its page one article today spitting in the eye of its future boss, in an article detailing Murdoch's history of meddling in his newspapers:

A detailed examination of Mr. Murdoch's half-century career as a journalist and businessman shows that his newspapers and other media outlets have made coverage decisions that advanced the interests of his sprawling media conglomerate, News Corp. In the process, Mr. Murdoch has blurred a line that exists at many other U.S. media companies between business and news sides -- a line intended to keep the business and political interests of owners from influencing the presentation of news.

Mr. Murdoch's focus on News Corp.'s bottom line has often allowed market considerations to influence editorial moves, and different markets have led to starkly different approaches. In the U.S., Fox News has thrived by tilting to the right, filling a niche left open by its network and cable rivals. In Italy, a 24-hour television news channel launched by Mr. Murdoch in 2003 has positioned itself as a relatively reliable and objective source of news -- in contrast to the political bias of Italy's more-established channels.

At all newspapers, owners have a say in broad editorial direction. Mr. Murdoch has a long history of being unusually aggressive, reflecting his roots as an old-fashioned press baron. From his earliest days, like some other newspaper proprietors of the last century, he ran his companies with his hands directly on the daily product, peppering reporters and editors with suggestions and criticisms.

...and on and on. Nice, tough and above all, long journalism. Better read it now, 'cause its days are numbered at the Journal.

© 2007 Gary Weiss. All rights reserved.

-----------

Wall Street Versus America was published by Penguin USA on April 6.
Click here for its Amazon.com listing and here for more information on the book, from my web site, gary-weiss.com.