WSJ union head: Don’t sell to Murdoch.
By on Jul 23rd, 2007 at 1:52 pm
WSJ union head: Don’t sell to Murdoch.
In Salon yesterday, Steven Yount, president of the union representing 2,000 Dow Jones employees, argued against selling the parent company of the Wall Street Journal to Rupert Murdoch:
I believe our members’ interests are best served by adherence to the principle of editorial independence within a company whose only mission is reporting the news. As journalists and union members we see no upside in reducing Dow Jones to a tiny appendage of a global conglomerate with financial, political and regulatory interests alien to what we do.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
“appendage of a global conglomerate with financial, political and regulatory interests alien to what we do.”
Sounds like how I’d describe Halliburton.
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:54 pmI’m sick of Rupert Murdoch and all his stupid companies.
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:54 pmRUCerious,
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:55 pmGeorge Soros and Micheal Moore each owned stock in Halliburton.
“As journalists and union members we see no upside in reducing Dow Jones…” – - As stockholders though there’s no way they won’t drool at getting almost twice what the stock is worth, from Murdoch.
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:59 pm“I’m sick of Rupert Murdoch and all his stupid companies.”
Murdoch should buy a liberal paper, like the new york times. And make some more balance in the media.
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:00 pmRUCerious,
George Soros and Micheal Moore each owned stock in Halliburton.
Comment by The Eck
And your proof is?
Every time you post this someone asks for a link and you never provide it.
Just saying…..
I own stock too, not in Haliburton though.
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:00 pm“George Soros and Micheal Moore each owned stock in Halliburton.”
Comment by The Eck — July 23, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
What better way to screw the Rightwing Fascists than to use those “sure profits” back against them . I recommend it.
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:02 pmMurdoch should buy a liberal paper, like the new york times. And make some more balance in the media.
Comment by The Eck — July 23, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
Except that this would tip the scale even more to the conservative side than it already is, so how would this balance the media?
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:03 pmRUCerious,
George Soros and Micheal Moore each owned stock in Halliburton.
Comment by The Eck — July 23, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
Perhaps The Hack expected RUCerious to respond, “Oh. I didn’t realize that. They must be okay, then.”
What a tool you are, The Hack.
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:04 pmMurdoch should buy a liberal paper, like the new york times. And make some more balance in the media.
Comment by The Eck — July 23, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
So you admit that Murdoch’s influence skews news sources to the right.
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:05 pmThat would be ironic if the WSJ listened to a union about anything, least of all their OWN business!
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:05 pmRUCerious,
George Soros and Micheal Moore each owned stock in Halliburton.
Comment by The Eck — July 23, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
Prove it.
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:07 pmI’m soo looking foreward to the CNBC “Money Honeys” on page 3 of the WSJ. ; )
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:09 pmI remember hearing that progressives(Moore and Soros included) were buying or were going to buy shares in Halliburton so that they would have the right as shareholders to speak at the annual meeting and could vote against the war-profiteering board and policies. I’m not sure to what extent this took place, however… But it would be troll-typical to twist it.
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:12 pmmikey r
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:16 pmI make it a point of ignoring trolls when they try to disrupt, distract, or otherwise make dumbass statements that attempt to bait.
“George Soros and Micheal Moore each owned stock…”
The key word here is “owned,” past tense. Before Cheney, Halliburton was an honest respectable corporation. It is true that evil corrupts.
Hey Zooey, I’m 50 pounds lighter and 10 years younger and came close to catching Granny yesterday!
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:18 pmLet’s forget for a moment how ludicrous the “financial, political and regulatory interests alien to what we do” part of the argument was. I think that Murdoch’s purchase would only affect the WSJ by making it just a more intense version of what it already is anyway. It’s the extension of his reach in powerful global media as a general matter that worries me more than anything. Between the newspapers and other media outlets that Murdoch owns all over the world, it’s like a global monopoly, and what worries me is that it seems to be unstoppable.
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:19 pmliberals are scared
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:22 pmIndeed, they are scared, crimedog, they are indeed.
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:24 pmIndeed, they are scared, crimedog, they are indeed.
Comment by Thrasymachos
Hmmm… last troll to use this phrasing,
Indeed, they are…. they are indeed…,
was indeed Mr P! Are crimedog & Thrasymachos the same person?
Afraid of what?
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:29 pm- looks like union members “scared” of losing their jobs, and rightfully so, and Murdoch “Scared” of the truth so he’ll sit his wrinkley ass on it.
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:35 pmNewspapers. Good investments in the 21st century hehehhehehe
Watch the movie NETWORK from 1976… 30 years ago….
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:35 pmI make it a point of ignoring trolls when they try to disrupt, distract, or otherwise make dumbass statements that attempt to bait.
Comment by RUCerious — July 23, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
A wise strategy. And I salute you for it.
Unfortunately, I’m not highly evolved enough to follow that path. I try, but sometimes they just sit there so stupidly in the middle of the road, looking like fat pigeons with a broken wing must look to a hungry cat.
It’s no excuse, I know. I’m trying.
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:36 pmIs OK mikey if you need theraputic value. I sometimes need to vent on their ridiculous posts sometimes. They do make it real easy, like fish and barrel.
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:43 pmLet’s forget for a moment how ludicrous the “financial, political and regulatory interests alien to what we do†part of the argument was. I think that Murdoch’s purchase would only affect the WSJ by making it just a more intense version of what it already is anyway. It’s the extension of his reach in powerful global media as a general matter that worries me more than anything. Between the newspapers and other media outlets that Murdoch owns all over the world, it’s like a global monopoly, and what worries me is that it seems to be unstoppable.
Comment by Alexandra
The Wall Street Journal has been, for many years, an extreme example of the “wall” between news and opinion. The journalists working for the WSJ are extremely good at their jobs and pride themselves on their independence. The editors at the WSJ are among the most right wing elements in print and would, IMO, cheerfully hand the nation over to the fascists without batting an eye.
The problem with this purchase is that Murdoch will undoubtedly break that wall down and poison the news reporting with the typical Murdoch agenda.
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:51 pmExcellent point, gummitch. The WSJ is universally regarded as an excellent source of journalism, while the editorial page has always been as far right as the WaTimes.
That’s the fear among the Journal reporters, as I understand it. That the news/editorial wall that has protected the journalists and allowed them to build the reputation that they have will crumble under the heavy hand of Rupert.
July 23rd, 2007 at 3:00 pmIs OK mikey if you need theraputic value. I sometimes need to vent on their ridiculous posts sometimes. They do make it real easy, like fish and barrel.
Comment by RUCerious
It’s not so much a case of taking the high road, it’s more one of doing what’s most effective. Trust me… I love a good game of Whack-A-Troll as much as anybody here.
I’ve just come to the conclusion we undermind ourselves some times by the way we reply to trolls, and even end up being manipulated if we’re not on or toes, guys.
If you try to rebutt a truly irrational comment directly, it actually gives validity to the point, by making it appear to be worthy of rebuttal. I’m trying to learn how to look at the comment and then decide, what’s the best way to neutralize this idiocy?
Sometimes you can factually knock them down, which is always good. If the ywant to go w/ facts, you can debate that and win. Just make sure what you say is verifiable (I love Google!!) and always take a minute to make sure they’re NOT making their facts up (they do!).
Sometimes you can use humor, which can really cut them off at the knees. It’s hard to be blustery when people are lauging at you.
Sometimes all you can do is say “That is an irrational comment” and walk away. It’s no good to get into a name-calling, push-pull situation around a comment that doesn’t mean anything ( So-and-so has a fat a**!!). Just walk away from the truly juvenile comments that can only be meant to disrupt.
Save your shots for those moments when you can REALLY nail their hides to the wall, like Mr P and his infamous “Saudis aren’t Moslems” comment. He made that statement, we trapped him w/ his own words, and we beat him like a gong! THAT was Whack-A-Troll at its finest!
July 23rd, 2007 at 3:05 pmGood post, TRoS.
It’s a fine philosophical calculation, troll-hunting, isn’t it?
Speaking of Mr. Pee and his “Saudis are not Muslims” comment, do you suppose that’s why he’s abandoned his Mr. Pee identity and now is poosting as Thrasymacho” or whatever it is? Or is he tired of getting slammed for the Sgt. Shepherd incident?
July 23rd, 2007 at 3:09 pmBut the latest move by globe trotting, hyper-liberal billionaire George Soros borders on being too much. According to papers filed with the SEC, in the fourth quarter of 2006 Soros purchased nearly 2 million shares of … hold your breath … Halliburton. The Halliburton shares reportedly went for an average purchase price of $31.30 a share. That puts Soros’ total investment in Halliburton at around $62.6 million, or about 2 percent of his total portfolio.
http://blogs.phillynews.com/dailynews/mt-comments-trythis.cgi?entry_id=4449
Michael Moore
owns Halliburton!
New book debunks claims of celebrity activists
He’s right. He doesn’t own a single share. He owns tens of thousands of shares – including nearly 2,000 shares of Boeing, nearly 1,000 of Sonoco, more than 4,000 of Best Foods, more than 3,000 of Eli Lilly, more than 8,000 of Bank One and more than 2,000 of Halliburton, the company most vilified by Moore in “Fahrenheit 9/11.”
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47174
July 23rd, 2007 at 3:52 pmThey could all quit and start a blog and it would serve the community better.
July 23rd, 2007 at 4:27 pm…i can see it now…circus clowns in the editorial room and miss new jersey lining up guests for the week-in-review program, while fighting off bill o’whats-his-name.
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:05 pmAre we falling asleep on the job?
Why Murdoch dismissed the Harper editor? We may know the answer but…….where have seen such corporate decision before?
Is News Corp closely allied with The New World Order?
July 24th, 2007 at 12:56 pm