I'll make this short because for me, at least, the point seems obvious. The owner of a property gets to do whatever he or she wants to do with the property. Rupert Murdoch has forked over $5 billion to acquire Dow Jones (which includes The Wall Street Journal). This means he can do anything he pleases with it. I may not like it, you may not like it, The New York Times might really not like it… but none of us owns the property. Mr. Murdoch does.

I bring it up because in this instance, and in countless other acquisitions I've witnessed or been involved in over the years involving high technology companies, there's often this sense among the old guard that the new guard had better be careful to perserve the old traditions. It's happening in this case, too. Here, for example, is a Yahoo News Opinion piece via The Nation with a fair amount of hand wringing and a spotlight on a planned protest aimed, I think, at trying to make sure the new owner does the right thing. Or, if not the right thing exactly, at least he'll know his every move is being closely scrutinized. From all I can discern from reading about all this, Rupert Murdoch couldn't care less.

For a straight version of the actual news, here's a link to a piece by Richard Siklos of The International Herald Tribune.

Unless agreements to perserve some things are made a part of the formal contract among the buyers and sellers — and there are a couple of these stipulations it seems in this deal, mostly involving some key editors — everything else is fair game. After all, if a person or a group wants to maintain control, they should retain ownership. You can't sell something outright and still expect to exert influence over the direction of the property's future, not in America anyway and not as I understand the capitalist system. Sure, he may make changes that some see as dreadful, but he has every right to do what he wants.

Share This