"Let men be wise by instinct if they can, but when this fails be wise by good advice." -Sophocles
Showing posts with label Wall Street Journal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wall Street Journal. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 1, 2007

WSJ Better Off With Murdoch Than Burkle

There is a neglected question surrounding Rupert Murdoch’s purchase of the Dow Jones Company and the Wall Street Journal: why were critics of the purchase and Dow Jones and Wall Street employees themselves up in arms over the threat to journalistic independence posed by Murdoch but none of them seemed even slightly concerned over the potential danger to literary freedom that might have occurred under a different buyer? The media attention Murdoch’s purchase garnered revolved around the assumption that Murdoch might meddle with the Wall Street Journal and compromise its journalistic integrity while there seemed to be very little concern that an owner other than Murdoch might inject his or her own ideology into the paper’s news coverage.

Before Murdoch and the Bancroft family, owners of Dow Jones, entered into the latest intense round of purchase negotiations that ended with this morning’s announced final decision to sell to Murdoch, the names of other potential buyers made brief splashes on media pages, only to be obscured by the long shadow cast by Murdoch’s media empire. One billionaire who expressed significant interest in purchasing Dow Jones, parent company of the Wall Street Journal, was Ron Burkle, former grocery store magnate and unquestionably the closest influential and wealthy friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton, both during Bill’s presidency and after.

Since leaving the White House, the Clinton’s have flown more mileage around the globe on Burkle’s private jet, an ostentatious Boeing 757, than on all other aircraft combined. Burkle’s Bel Air (Los Angeles) estate has hosted countless parties, fundraisers, rallies, and private retreats for the Clintons, as president and former president. Further cementing his position at the Clintons’ side, Burkle has consistently ranked as one of the top individual donors to the Democratic National Committee, Hillary’s election and reelection campaigns for the Senate, and currently to her presidential campaign.

I am not suggesting that there is anything improper about this cozy financial and political relationship. Wealthy and influential individuals in both parties have always ingratiated themselves with political figures for a variety of personal or business reasons. Likewise, I am not impugning Burkle’s motives for his desire to bankroll and provide free transportation to the Clintons to further their political ambitions. The significance of this relationship lies in the complete lack of attention given to it by the media and Dow Jones employees while Burkle was floating multi-billion dollar offers that many found more appealing than selling to Murdoch. While Murdoch was vilified for his personal involvement in making changes to previous news enterprises he had acquired, no one gave any serious consideration to how the Wall Street Journal might have covered news under Burkle’s ownership in light of his close ties to the Clintons.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), largely because of its foundations in American business, has usually been a reliably conservative publication, with a few exceptions such as its advocacy of open borders and amnesty for illegal immigrants. Even in taking that position, as flawed as it was, the WSJ was consistent with the views of many influential businesses that utilize cheap labor. Aside from that issue, though, the WSJ’s conservative news coverage and Op/Ed pieces are a welcome alternative to the brazenly liberal news coverage offered by the New York Times and most major dailies in America’s cities. As “meddling” as Murdoch’s takeovers and purchases of various media outlets may have been, few would argue that his influence has ideologically altered the news coverage of those outlets. It is certainly true that he has employed certain tactics such as shocking headlines and stories with some reference to sex to generate attention, particularly in some of his international publications. Yet he established Fox News as a more conservative alternative to liberal CNN and traditional network news offerings, and after more than a decade of broadcasting, Fox News remains dedicated to providing that conservative perspective. Dow Jones and WSJ employees should consider that aspect of Murdoch’s track record and breathe a little easier than they might have if Burkle had successfully purchased Dow Jones.

The Clintons already have an influential and widely read publication consistently doing their bidding: the New York Times. Their reach would have been enormously increased if Burkle had purchased the WSJ. It is extremely unlikely that an aggressive businessman like Burkle, who enjoys personal involvement in running his enterprises, would have been an absentee owner who would have kept his hands off of the WSJ’s journalistic ideology. Burkle is highly active in the DNC and his personal relationship with the Clintons would certainly have influenced what he would or would not want to read in his version of the WSJ. Why would he have paid billions of dollars to purchase Dow Jones and the WSJ only to allow it to undo his political activism through articles or Op/Ed pieces critical of his party and specifically the Clintons? That would not have been a wise return on his investment. Under Burkle’s ownership, the WSJ likely would have embarked on a slow but steady drift to the left, something neither its readers nor its employees would have appreciated.

It is easy to understand why Dow Jones and WSJ employees feared a Murdoch takeover, but they had much more to fear, including their jobs as conservative journalists, had a less controversial buyer like Burkle gotten his hands on the WSJ. Murdoch will be under enormous pressure to maintain the WSJ’s reputation and broad readership. He will surely tinker with the WSJ, attempting to make it more widely available, or perhaps bring it into more direct competition with the New York Times or even USA Today. Some of those efforts might achieve spectacular success, and some might prove to be dismal failures. The good news for WSJ employees is that his track record with Fox News indicates that he will not alter the generally conservative bent of the WSJ, which is the source of the paper’s journalistic independence in a news media world dominated by liberal lock-step ideology.

Technorati Tags:
, , , , , , ,

Friday, December 15, 2006

Fighting Terrorism From Your Desk: "Terror-Free Investing"

Most U.S. citizens who wish they could do something to combat terrorism do not enlist in the military, or leave their jobs to join intelligence and law enforcement agencies engaged in the War on Terror. What can the average American do to help eradicate global terrorism, or at least make it increasingly difficult for terrorists to obtain weaponry or travel? One easy and effective tactic available to any American owning stocks or shares in mutual funds is to make sure your hard earned money is not being invested in companies who are known to do business with foreign states identified by the U.S. State Department as state sponsors of terrorism.

In an article published in yesterday’s edition of the Wall Street Journal, Missouri State Treasurer Sarah Steelman brilliantly explained the work of an independent research firm, Conflict Securites Advisory Group (CSAG), that has identified 485 publicly traded companies doing business with four governments designated by the State Department as state sponsors of terrorism. Those four terrorist sponsors are Iran, Sudan, North Korea, and Syria. These companies offer a wide variety of services to these regimes, and the lucrative contracts provide these governments with the ability to fund terrorist activities, develop WMD programs, and supply weapons and logistical support to the insurgency in Iraq that is killing American soldiers. Steelman rightly advised that by cutting off investments in these companies, CEOs will be pressured to change business practices and choose clients not affiliated with terrorists. When share prices and dividends decline, CEOs are jettisoned as excess baggage. In the interest of self preservation, these CEOs will adopt the terror-free business practices they should already have been following.

Steelman’s insightful article also described how as Missouri State Treasurer, she helped her state develop and launch the nation’s first “terror-free investment fund,” and is rolling out Missouri’s 529 College Savings Advisor Plan in 2007 that will offer the Roosevelt Anti-Terror Multi-Cap Fund (RATF). This fund will exclude companies doing business with designated state sponsors of terrorism. This concept will allow Missourians to do the right thing twice with one investment: save for a child’s college tuition; and combat global terrorism by keeping money out of the hands of terrorists and regimes seeking WMD development.

Other investment firms have begun to follow suit, such as Nationwide Financial, and according to market research performed by Steelman’s office and CSAG, the transition to terror-free investing within mutual funds has been very successful. In fact, the funds are significantly outperforming existing indexes. If there is any question that money talks, we should consider, as Steelman reminded, that South Africa is free of Apartheid because of financial pressures created by shareholders in companies doing business with the South African government. Apartheid-free investing worked, and every indication is that terror-free investing is also effective.

It is not often that the average American is presented with a direct opportunity to fight terrorism. The operatives who struck us on 9/11 needed funds to train, travel here, find housing, feed themselves, enroll in flight schools, rent cars, purchase airline tickets to perform dry runs, and finally to purchase those fateful one-way tickets for the 9/11 flights. If you could keep money from flowing to such operatives preparing for future attacks, would you? Learn more about terror-free investing through the links above, and ask your financial planner or 401k manager to exclude any company identified by CSAG as doing business with terror sponsors. American intelligence and law enforcement agencies are limited by available funding for our efforts to combat terrorism, and terrorists also rely on funding to recruit, train, and act. Without funds, their efforts are significantly hampered.

If Americans can boycott Disney over moral issues or Wal-Mart over clothes production in sweatshops, we can rise to this occasion and withhold funds from those who have already killed thousands of Americans and are preparing to do so again. Is your money being invested in one of the 485 companies identified by CSAG? With a few clicks of your mouse, you can find out and fight terrorism from your desk.