It's all business

So in the grand scheme of things is Rupert Murdoch's successful bid to purchase of Dow Jones on Wednesday the face of evil or is it possibly a good thing? I'm sure we won't really know for a while but as a closet Wall Street Journal reader it's something I'm thinking about. On the one hand Murdoch paid $60 a share, 67% premium on the share price, at that point as one of the Bancroft family member said selling is the only reasonable thing to do. Dow Jones is going to have a whole lot more money and be able to reach more people world wide. On the other hand Leslie Hill a family member opposed to the deal conceded the deal is a good one financially but it fails to outweigh "the loss of an independent global news organization with unmatched credibility and integrity". I don't agree with the Wall Street Journal's viewpoint and I can't bear to read the editorial page. I subscribe and read the WSJ because it's well written and to an extent trustworthy, I know it's biased but I'm prepared for that, I know what I'm getting into. With News Corp behind the WSJ it loses some of that credibility. Though if Murdoch as he has said adds four pages of news and uses News Corps deep pockets to maintain quality journalism it might end up being a better paper. The WSJ faced dwindling advertising and like all newspapers competition from other news sources mainly the web. It was unlikely to remain independent much longer facing a need for deep cost cuts and recently reduced it's page size. How do you price independence? In a letter to WSJ readers Publisher L. Gordon Crovitz maintains "The same standards of accuracy, fairness and authority will apply to this publication regardless of ownership." It remains to be seen what will happen or if anyone will notice. Change was inevitable and at the end of the it was a deal that was too good to turn down. But the question remains and won't be answered for years what's the real cost?