Ron Burkle is interested in purchasing the WSJ

I was just listening to Ed Schultz on the Radio and low and behold a Democrat is interested in puting in a bid for the Dow Jones, WSJ.

More Below

I do not pretend to be a diarist but I thought that this was very interesting news and could certainly change the editorial position of the WSJ if Ron Burkle is serious in his intentions.  I was looking for an article on this after listening to Ed Schultz and I was able to find one here.

It sounds too good to be true.  Here is a short discription of who Ron Burkle is.

Burkle, who made a fortune investing in supermarket chains, had also teamed up last year with a union representing employees at nine Knight Ridder Inc. newspapers in an effort to buy that company. However Knight Ridder wound up selling itself to McClatchy Co., another California-based publisher.

So what do you think?  Could this actually happen?  

•  Tip Jar, flames, mojo?

  by KatHart on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:21:59 AM PDT

•  why would

  why would the Bancrofts sell? How much fucking money does one need in this world?

  by pissedpatriot on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:22:52 AM PDT

  •  I indeed do not have any idea why they would

    sell but if they are serious about selling I certainly would rather see it in the hands of Burkle over Murdoch.  

    by KatHart on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:25:22 AM PDT

  •  The WSJ isn't in great financial shape

    apparently which is why Murdoch is making his move now.  It would be really, really bad if Murdoch manages to pull this deal off given his penchant for managing newsrooms as if they are public relations firms.  It won't be long before the Journal becomes a print version of Neil Cavuto and his "Cost of Freedom" spin room.

    I'm not sure Wall Street really understand that Murdoch has his sights on the Journal because he sees a great potential to control the market with his spin the way he saw potential to control the political process when he created Fox News.  They probably think they're too smart to be fooled, but I think they are just as vulnerable as the rest of America given the Murdoch's skills and talents where it comes to brain washing.

    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 11:10:16 AM PDT

    •  Cavuto already writes the oped page

      the real issue is if the WSJ becomes Investor's Business Daily, where the news is skewed to have a republican bias, and the Op-ed page extends to the front cover.  With the WSJ, you can just ignore the editorials and it's a good paper.  

      My understanding is that WSJ has stockholders, did they take it private?  Jim Cramer used to talk about how his shares in WSJ weren't doing so well if I remember the mid-'90s correctly.

      Murdoch has offered to overpay for the paper by a large margin.  For anyone to compete with him would be amazing, which is where his approach came from IMHO.

      by unterhausen on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 11:57:04 AM PDT

      •  I think the family still holds a controlling

        interest in the paper.  And I knew that Cavuto and other idiots appear in the editorials, but as you said if you ignore them the paper is pretty good.  Murdoch will just use it to tout his own investments an those of his buddies.  It is pretty scary in a way.  Murdoch often overpays when he has a vision of conquest...

        by inclusiveheart on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 12:14:49 PM PDT

      •  Dow Jones, owner of the WSJ,

        is still a public company.    Symbol is DJ.

        The Bancrofts have controlling interest.

        by mjr on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 12:54:16 PM PDT

•  The media said members of the Bancroft family

  were interested in selling but not all of them. The anti-Murdoch members were looking for a "white knight" to counter Murdoch.

  by Naturegal on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:32:06 AM PDT

  •  Who would their "white knight" be?

    Would Burkle qualify for that title?

    by KatHart on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:36:24 AM PDT

    •  Based on this article

      it sounds like it to me.

      by Naturegal on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:46:09 AM PDT

    •  Burkle's been a strong Dem donor

      Clinton pal ... hasn't given to GoOPers in federal elections in well over a decade, though he did donate to the Gropenator ...

      btw, Burkle also attempted to buy TribCo, but bid was rejected

      damn, i wish i could help somehow ... this is nearly as important as getting a Dem into the Oval Office (and could have serious impact on same)

      btw, bonddad did a diary that slipped by this morning on the same subject

      by wystler on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:51:42 AM PDT

•  This is an important story

  This is potentially a very important story. The WSJ News division has maintained its independence thus far, but the editorial board is made up of complete lunatics. Paul Gigot is as hard to listen to as Bush or Cheney.

  Dow Jones supports MANY Bancroft family members, and it seems they are gradually moving to accept Murdoch's bid.  To have a rival bidder of course works to help the Bancrofts.

  The WSJ is probably the most important newspaper in the country.  To have it become a neutral, reality based, non-partisan voice (with such a purchase as Burkle's) would be great.

  by mjr on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:34:32 AM PDT

  •  I agree, I think this is an important story

    so if you have any clout maybe you could find a real diarist to pick it up.  I'm slowly fading into the neverworld.

    by KatHart on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:39:38 AM PDT

    •  Hmmm

      Given that I'm a LONG TIME Kos reader but have no diaries and very few comments to my credit, I'm probably not the one to be able to help promote this story.  Sorry, I wish I could.

      I strongly believe that our country needs to have  a media that is scrupulously non partisan.

      I don't want a Dem media or Repub media.  I want a media that again is the watchdog of our democracy.  

      by mjr on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 12:03:20 PM PDT

      •  That makes two of us. I just recently

        attended a dinner where Senator Durbin spoke and he brought up the "fairness doctrine" as a way to get the media back to balanced coverage.

        by KatHart on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 12:12:11 PM PDT