Page 1 of 1

[分享]Promises, Promises

Posted: 2007-07-10 15:25
by Knowing
Interesting article on New Yorker from a few weeks ago.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007 ... ct_auletta

What might the Wall Street Journal become if Rupert Murdoch owned it?

Murdoch’s business relations with China―and the coverage of China by the Murdoch press―have been especially questionable. In 1993, when he bought Star TV, he called advances in technology a “threat to totalitarian regimes everywhere,” an assertion that angered the Chinese government, helping prompt a virtual ban on individual ownership of satellite dishes in China. In the case of Star, the threat to the Chinese regime turned out to be more notional than real. To show his contrition, in 1994, after China complained about coverage by the BBC―in particular, a documentary about Mao Zedong that took note of Mao’s unorthodox sex life―Murdoch dropped the service from Star, and substituted a Mandarin-language film channel. Two years later, Star established a joint venture―Phoenix satellite TV―with a Chinese broadcaster close to the government, and in another act of contrition a Murdoch company published and fêted a mediocre book by a daughter of Deng Xiaoping.
Murdoch insisted to the Financial Times in May that the decision to drop the BBC “was driven by commercial considerations,” and not by a “request from anybody in China.” At the time, however, the authorities’ displeasure was well known. “The BBC was driving them nuts,” Murdoch had told me. “It’s not worth it. . . . We’re not proud of that decision.” Not surprisingly, the Journal’s Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting team in China has publicly expressed alarm at the prospect of a Murdoch takeover of Dow Jones, saying in a letter to the Bancroft family that Murdoch “has a well-documented history of making editorial decisions in order to advance his business interests in China.”

Posted: 2007-07-10 16:32
by lindamm
heard if Dow Jones would not be purchased by Murdoch, quite a few people will be laid off.

I just borrowed a biography about Murdoch, probably it is a good idea to write some 读书笔记 :-P

Posted: 2007-07-10 18:03
by Jun
A hard-core right-wing conservative, topless photos in tabloid magazines, and happy collaborator with totalitarian regimes. Perfect.

Posted: 2007-07-13 8:09
by Knowing
lindamm wrote:heard if Dow Jones would not be purchased by Murdoch, quite a few people will be laid off.

I just borrowed a biography about Murdoch, probably it is a good idea to write some 读书笔记 :-P
Because the stock price will fall.
Too bad there was no serious competitors in this (possible) deal. Plus Mordoch is slightly crazy to offer such a high price, it doesn't make much business sense. He just really wants to own WSJ.

Posted: 2007-07-31 20:34
by Knowing
This is depressing... Oh well, I don't read WSJ anyway. Thank God he is not interested in New Yorker...yet...

Murdoch Seen Winning in Bid for Dow Jones

Posted: 2007-08-01 6:51
by karen
What's the point of buying Dow Jones? This is pretty depressing. :( I remember years and years ago it did an investigative piece on his Chinese wife. The article digged out all the dirt about how she came to US and what she did at business school. Now it's common knowledge, but WSJ was first to report that. Who would have thought years later she will become the wife-of-the boss of the newspaper who "ousted" her?

Posted: 2007-08-01 8:51
by 花差花差小将军
Yeah, I remember the WSJ coverage on Wendy D. Maybe this is a revenge orchestrated by Wendy?

WSJ is already bad enough. Many articles go on for paragraphs without saying anything, other than filling the pages -- kind of like American huge-portioned yet bland junk food. I, personally, switched to FT years ago. It is interesting that this past weekend we were discussing the difference btwn FT anf WSJ. I said WSJ was like over sweetened ice cream with too much air whipped in it, and FT was like a dense scoop of gelato. Shi Niang grinned and asked if I was sure about the ice cream, and if it was not actually cotton candy :mrgreen:

Posted: 2007-08-01 9:10
by Jun
That's a very nice theory, General. I was thinking about the same thing.

Posted: 2007-08-01 9:13
by Knowing
You think icecream is bad? Wait until WSJ becomes Big Mac!

Posted: 2007-08-01 9:24
by Jun
No! I meant the revenge theory about Deng.

Posted: 2007-08-01 9:36
by Knowing
Jun wrote:No! I meant the revenge theory about Deng.
不会吧,那篇文章没怎么损她。基本就暗示她聪明伶俐,懂得把握时机,一路踩着老头们力求上进。通篇连掘金女一词都没用,全是暗示。她的前任们也很低调,除了前夫一个有名有姓的都没找出来,前夫对花儿街日报的记者也没吱声。你看人家多会挑男朋友!我要是她,觉得简直就是夸自己。要报复也得先报复亦舒。亦舒的小说才是诬陷抹黑呢。

Posted: 2007-08-01 9:41
by 花差花差小将军
The exes probably have something to lose too. I remember the article full of hints of a gold digger who is so ambitious that she's determined to run over the legal heirs (old man's sons) and Mu3 Yi2 Tian1 Xia4 :f23:

Posted: 2007-08-01 9:42
by Knowing
she's determined to run over the legal heirs (old man's sons) and Mu3 Yi2 Tian1 Xia4
....But that DID happen! :mrgreen: So it is not slandering either.

Posted: 2007-08-01 9:44
by 花差花差小将军
Yeah, I know :mrgreen:
Is it just my impression or you agree with me? We all know she is no energy efficient lamp -- but she looks mean, non?

Posted: 2007-08-01 9:52
by Knowing
When did I not agree with you? :party003:

Posted: 2007-08-01 9:55
by Jun
You don't become the First Wife of News Corp. by playing nice. It's practically a job requirement.

But then being RP's sons and daughters are no energy-efficient lamps either.

Posted: 2007-08-01 10:07
by Knowing
Jun wrote:
But then being RP's sons and daughters are no energy-efficient lamps either.
And they are the same age. I mean PR's sons and wife. :mrgreen:

Posted: 2007-08-01 10:23
by Jun
I have to admit I look forward to the day RP dies -- oh just imagine the WAR that both sides will wage! :eyepatch:

Posted: 2007-08-01 11:53
by 花差花差小将军
I didn't know the old man was born in Australia, I always thought Austria :mrgreen:
Kiss kiss knowing :mrgreen: But I mean, you don't have to look mean to act mean. Like Yi Shu would say, still hasn't achieved the number of levels (duan4 shu4) ah :mrgreen: