Murdoch and the WSJ

Every time I speak, people ask me about new media and money – namely, how to make money through the internet. And they always bring up Rupert Murdoch. He wouldn’t have bought the Wall Street Journal if he didn’t think there was money in it, right?

Right, but wrong. There’s money for Murdoch in buying the Journal, but not the money you’re thinking about. What Murdoch wants is a respectable business brand. The WSJ is that. It was actually a profitable online business, too – their articles were valuable enough for people to pay real money to access them.

But that’s not the money Murdoch wants. Murdoch wants to spend the WSJ’s credibility on two very different things. First, he wants an international news brand for TV and the Internet. Fox is too O’Reilly-polluted to serve as a seemingly neutral source of authoritative financial news. WSJ has a good decade of international branding left in it before it would be totally watered down through overuse.

Second, the WSJ has enough credibility to influence markets. And that’s the real game being played here. The last of the credible top-down media companies will be employed in the continuing public relations strategy for deregulation, the stock market pyramid, or whatever else is in its owners’ interests. As people learn to look at bottom-up media for the credibility that top-down conglomerate-owned media must by definition lack, things will change again. This time for the better.

Posted on 28 April '08 by Douglas, under corporatism, economics, marketing, media theory, pop culture.

3 Comments to “Murdoch and the WSJ”

#1 Posted by mason (29.04.08 at 08:35 )

The WSJ (with a few exceptions) has always been for deregulation, etc. I think its ironic that the paper has found an owner more like itself. Every few years or so i’d get a cheap subscription. They did have good writers on culture. Maybe they will stay? The simpson’s/o’reilly mix works.

The american mind is schizophrenic. We are corporatist tools when it comes to finance and individualists when it comes to society.

We like the collective in war and finance, but are told to fear it if it’s bringing Health care, regulation, etc.

#2 Posted by DJ (30.04.08 at 20:33 )

Douglas, there was a bit of a meme going about how Murdoch wanted to alter the WSJ’s focus to compete directly with the NY Times. Thought it interesting. Would be interested in your thoughts on the matter.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/132852
As the Times has become more and more confused in my view, not sure that there’s much difference between the two any more anyway…

#3 Posted by Douglas (11.05.08 at 07:59 )

Yeah, interesting. I don’t think that’s Murdoch’s aim (he’d just buy the NYT Company if he wanted to have a brand like that). I really think he looks at the business and lobbying end first. The individual properties exist less as content providers than potential leverage points for legislation to promote his business interests. That’s what Fox news does, most significantly.