Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. has made an unsolicited offer to purchase the Dow Jones Company, owner of, among other things, the Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones is majority controlled by the Bancroft family, who have been reluctant to sell in the past. But the combination of the poor performance of newspaper investments and the nearly 50% premium that Murdoch is offering may represent a more tempting proposal than they have seen before. The significance of this potential acquisition extends to a variety of concerns that should raise field of red flags.

The first and most obvious concern relates to the ongoing problem of media consolidation. The News Corp. empire already owns the nation’s largest cable news network, a major broadcast entertainment network, numerous TV and radio stations, a prominent film/TV studio, entertainment and sports cable networks, magazine and newspaper holdings, publishing companies including HarperCollins, and Internet properties including the world’s largest social networking site, MySpace. Dow Jones, in addition to the Wall Street Journal, owns the Dow Jones Newswire, Barrons Magazine, the Dow Jones Indexes, and popular Internet destinations spun off of the Journal and Barrons.

The thought of these two highly influential media conglomerates merging should stir up some anxiety under any circumstances. But add in the recent announcement by Fox of their intention to launch a new Fox Business Channel this fall and that anxiety should escalate into full blown vertigo. Placing the assets of Dow Jones under the same umbrella that runs what will be a formidable player in cable financial news will produce an anti-competitive megalith that can only result in a decline in journalistic aspirations as well as further erosion of the public interest. But the problem is worse than just any media group acquiring Dow Jones. The Fox aqcuisition brings along with it Murdoch’s previously admitted biases and rejection of the most basic principles of journalism. As a reminder, Murdoch told conferees at a McGraw-Hill media summit that…

“…a Fox channel would be ‘more business-friendly than CNBC.’ That channel ‘leap[s] on every scandal, or what they think is a scandal.'”

If that’s a preview of what we can expect from the Fox Business Channel, and the Fox-run Wall Street Journal, we do have real cause for concern. It would mean an end to objectivity and accuracy in favor of being more “friendly” toward the institutions that are being covered.

But that’s not all. The assets of Dow Jones span a unique stretch of the American landscape. The Wall Street Journal, while widely considered to have a conservative slant on its editorial pages, is often a valuable contributor to serious investigative journalism. And its management of the stock market indexes that influence much of the economic activity in the country, and the world, depend on fealty to the marketplace and not other subjective criteria. How can such impartial management be expected from Murdoch, who also made this confession at a conference in Davos, Switzerland, when asked if he had managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq:

“No, I don’t think so. We tried.” Asked by [Charlie] Rose for further comment, he said: “We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East.”

Would he try to use his new toys to shape the economy by publishing articles supportive of Bush (or other neocon) policy? Would he try to manipulate the contents of the Dow 30, or other market indexes, for partisan purposes?

Murdoch’s ambitions are notorious and frightening. These latest moves bring us closer to the tightening of the noose around America’s throat. News Corp is rapidly overwhelming the most intimate and influential components of our society. They may soon control the perceptions of our politics (Fox News), our culture (Fox Entertainment), and now our economy (Fox Business Channel/DowJones). And anyone who isn’t afraid of this – afraid enough to be motivated to act – is probably already infected, likely beyond salvation. I hope that does not include YOU!

The Postal Service recently announced that they will be raising rates for magazines and periodicals. That news by itself is not exactly earth shattering. But there’s more.

The original proposal from the Postal Commission recommended a fairly routine increase of approximately 12% across the board. That would be consistent with historical rate structures that spread the costs fairly to all publishers, from the smallest indie press to the biggest print empire.

But that didn’t sit well with some of the entrenched monopolists at Time Warner. Raising objections to the plan, TW proposed their own that, predictably, favored big corporations by awarding huge discounts for massive bulk mailings. The TW plan would result in increases for themselves that were as little as 10%, but their smaller rivals’ rates could balloon up as much as 30%. Through the strength of their wealth and political influence, TW succeeded in strong-arming the Postal Service to adopt its scheme.

For anyone who thinks that it is only fair that large publishers who ship higher quantities should enjoy higher discounts, you should know that this was never the intention of the Postal Service’s rate policy. For over 200 years it has been part of their mission to have the big players partially subsidize costs for new and independent media. Indeed, it has played a large role in our country’s commitment to a free and diverse press. Journalism professor and FreePress founder, Robert McChesney, recognizes the problem and warns of the consequences:

“What the Post Office is planning to do now, in the dark of night, is implement a rate structure that gives the best prices to the biggest publishers, hence letting them lock in their market position and lessen the threat of any new competition. The new rates could make it almost impossible to launch a new magazine, unless it is spawned by a huge conglomerate.”

Scared? You should be, because in addition to the threat that this policy poses to independent media, the plan is being rushed through with almost no opportunity for public comment. In fact, Monday, April 23, is the last day that the people can have any say.

FreePress is making it easy for you weigh in on this vital issue. Go to www.StopPostalRateHikes.com where you can send an email to the Postal Board of Governors and your congressional representatives. But…

You Have To Do This NOW!

This window is shutting very soon and action that is put off will not be able to be taken at all in a couple of days. Don’t let Time Warner and their cabal of corporate conspirators stomp out the most vibrant, provocative, and honest reporting and commentary our country has to offer. This is literally a matter of life or death for many small publishers. Your voice can help save theirs.

Cross-ownership in the media business is a growing threat to the independence and diversity of the press. Numerous studies have demonstrated that when newspapers and television stations in the same market are owned by the same parent corporation, balanced coverage and local reporting suffer. One such study that was originally commissioned by the FCC was suppressed and ordered destroyed because it didn’t support the conservative chairman’s prejudice. Yet media conglomerates obsessed with expanding their power continue to lobby for weakening regulations.

The Los Angeles Times, an asset of the Tribune Company of Chicago, has been engaged in a full-court press to aid its parent in the fight to deregulate. The February 19, edition of their Business section contains an article that is nothing more than testimony on behalf of Tribune’s financial interests – at the expense of the public interest.

This is at least the third article that the Times has published on this subject in five months. There is nothing new to the arguments presented in this column. It mostly repeats the same old arguments made previously, and on which I reported here and here. They even trot out a fantasized tale of Richard Nixon’s involvement in stemming cross-ownership. Despite the fact that there is no objective truth to that claim, the Times has now inserted it into its articles twice. Both times they confessed that there was no basis for the claim, but both times they still managed to muddy the waters with it.

The new wrinkle is that they are now whining about how hard it is to find a buyer for the company which has been on the block for several months. After draconian cuts in the budget and staff (reducing the newsroom by 50%) didn’t motivate buyers, they now blame their woes on the fact that a waiver they received from the FCC to operate both the Times and KTLA-TV would not transfer to a new owner. Prospective buyers, therefore, would have to divest one of those properties, making the acquisition less attractive. Well, how about revoking the waiver now, forcing Tribune to make the divestment, then sell the slimmed-down company?

One revealing observation about this latest piece of self puffery is that the author, Jim Puzzanghera, quoted nine sources for the article. Seven of them supported the Big Media position on media policy. Is this an example of their commitment to be fair and balanced?

It’s not particularly surprising that the Times would allow itself to be used in this way by Tribune. The Times recently fired its editor and publisher and replaced them both with loyal corporate cronies from the Chicago nest. Now they are carrying out a self-serving agenda that is in itself the best argument against deregulation. While not surprising, it is still distressing to see a local paper being manipulated like a puppet by a distant master. If what’s left of the staff at the Times had any self-respect, they would yank Tribune’s arm from its ass and start to speak for itself and its community. Just who do they think they are here to serve?

A new WE Media/Zogby Interactive poll surveyed members of the public and the media for their views on contemporary journalism. The results offer an interesting perspective on both the regard for which the press is held and the variance of that regard by each group:

It’s encouraging to see that majorities of both groups consider the press out of touch. Although it does raise an obvious question: If the media professionals feel that way, why aren’t they doing something about it?

A divergence occurs over the level of satisfaction, with the public overwhelming unsatisfied and the media straddling the fence. This is also a curious finding because it suggests that the media folks are fairly satisfied despite their belief that the press overall is out of touch.

The surprising response is the media’s acknowledgement of the role bloggers will play going forward. With virtual unanimity they are conceding the impact of what happens to be their biggest threat. And while just a little over half of the public agrees, a much larger percentage (76%) view the Internet as having had a positive impact on the overall quality of journalism. This seems to be a recognition of the watchdog effect that the Internet has. Both the people and the press know that stories that are inaccurate or incomplete are going to be challenged. And issues that don’t get carried in mainstream outlets are going to be hammered on in new media channels until they get the attention they deserve.

That is the power of citizen journalism and as long as we protect it from the encroachment of Big Media, it will be there to keep them honest.

Paul R. La Monica, CNNMoney.com editor at large, says that “Old media isn’t dead.” The following is my response:

Dear Paul,

As the publisher of News Corpse, I have to take issue with the premise of your article this morning that “old media isn’t dead.”

You make the argument that because old media isn’t going away, that it isn’t dead. That’s a flawed argument because there is no reason that the media can’t die and still stink up the place with its corpse. But eventually, someone’s going to have to call the Health Department and have the body carted away.

To borrow from the Terri Schiavo debate, we might want to define what constitutes life. Most of the examples in your column refer to blips on the financial screen. But there is also the matter of quality of life. While there is still money to be made in the old media marketplace, many informed observers will tell you that it is in a persistent vegetative state, i.e. brain dead. In the past week alone, three major newspapers were caught making the same mistakes they made four years ago by dutifully transcribing unsourced government claims, this time about Iran. And though you quoted Rupert Murdoch’s comments about the fiscal health of newspapers, were you aware of his admission last month that he tried to use his media empire to shape the agenda on Iraq? And as if that weren’t bad enough, he made similar comments about his upcoming business channel being “business friendly.” That doesn’t sound like the kind of life that’s worth living.

You correctly point out that old media is moving into new media spaces. I view this as deathbed desperation. Although terminal, old media is still aware of the doom that the future holds and they are trying to cling to the new out of fear. Ultimately, all media will be delivered via the Internet. The part old media plays depends on whether they can discover a miracle cure and recover, or simply and gratefully slip into the void.

There is one other possible outcome that I would call the Vampire Scenario. This is where old media buys up massive chunks of new media, successfully bribes Washington’s legislators and regulators to give themselves more power, and emerges undead from its own grave.

That was meant to sound scary.

When the White House Press Stenographers Association is too afraid of losing access to challange those they cover; when corporations that profit from war and other government enterprises control the mass media; when Congress is disinclined to rein in the monopolistic tendancies of the big media’s five families; how can anyone seriously view old media as anything but a stiff, lifeless hulk that, if not dead, is praying for someone to pull the plug.

As the FCC continues to review media ownership rules, Big Media hacks persist in spreading false claims about competition and the benefits of local ownership.

Former FCC commissioner, Reed Hundt, told USA Today that the meaning of ‘media monopoly’ has changed:

“‘Media monopoly’ seems now to be about whether you can use the Internet for free or whether there’s any limit on what you can send over the Internet […] The issues of the last 10 years don’t have that much resonance anymore.”

Mr. Hundt is obviously confusing ‘media monopoly’ with ‘municipal access” and ‘network neutrality’ – a pedestrian mistake for someone with so-called credentials. He might be surprised to learn that in the real world ‘media monopoly’ still means a concentration of media companies into the hands of a few powerful conglomerates that exercise undue influence over distribution and content. And those issues still possess great resonance. In 2003, three million Americans rose up to roll back FCC regulations that would have allowed the media monopolists to grow ever larger.

We are facing that same battle today and the same voices from Big Media are telling the same lies to advance their greed. They argue that cable and the Internet neutralize the risk that any one company can dominate public opinion.

“There are more (media) outlets today than there have been at any point in the past,” says media investor Christopher Dixon of GGCP. “Every day that more people are on the Internet, the argument for cross-ownership limitations falls by the wayside.”

First of all, there are not more media outlets than ever – or at least not by any qualitative count. The actual number of radio and TV stations has remained fairly constant. The new players are in cable and the Internet. But most of the major cable networks are owned by the same corporations that have consolidated so many of the broadcast stations. It’s just nonsense to allege that the number of outlets is increasing as the number of owners is decreasing.

Secondly, it makes no sense to suggest that more people on the Internet should affect cross-ownership regs. Monopolies in media distribution are adverse to the public interest no matter how many people use the Internet. And, again, it needs to be pointed out that most of the top Internet news destinations are owned by Big Media. They think that just because I can have a web site, that I pose a competitive threat to Fox News.

I wish that were true.

An audience survey by comScore Networks reveals that the major league players in establishment media are coming closer to dominating the new media playing field as well.

Fox Interactive Media (1), Time Warner (3), Viacom (7), and Comcast (10), are all in the top 10 of sites as ranked by page views. It has already been noted here at News Corpse that 9 of the top 11 online news destinations are already owned or operated by the folks who bring you the conventional media, and those same voracious corporations are rapidly acquiring the most promising new web sensations.

So if anyone was getting the idea that new media was going to save us all from the old, mainstream variety, regard this as your wake up call.