The Wall Street Journal proves today that, when pushed, it can do excellent
long-form narrative investigative journalism and turn it around within 24 hours.
Much kudos to Matthew Karnitschnig, Sarah Ellison,
Susan Pulliam and Susan Warren for pulling together
definitive story on how the Bancrofts changed their mind, and getting it
out on today’s front page. (And good on the WSJ, too, for making the story free
on its website.)
The full story is rich and subtle and well worth reading. But I do get the
impression that the anti-Murdoch forces in the Bancroft family got a bit too
complacent, and were essentially unaware that Thursday’s headline-grabbing volte-face
was even a possibility.
Meanwhile, the Bancrofts who were more amenable to talking to Murdoch were
increasingly convinced that Dow Jones is too small and cash-poor to survive
as a competitive independent entity. CEO Richard Zannino was
clearly sympathetic to that view, and eventually it seems that the all-important
Michael Elefante came round to it too.
Rupert Murdoch comes off as very smart, quietly sending emissaries
to key Bancroft constituents as long ago as September 2006. Meanwhile, Christopher
Bancroft and William Cox Jr, who are opposed to selling
Dow Jones, seem to have made a serious tactical error by not turning up at a
key family meeting in Boston, with the latter saying he "could care less"
what was discussed.
What happens next is still far from clear, although we know there will be a
meeting on Monday with Rupert Murdoch, which will concentrate on the question
of editorial independence. From reading the WSJ report, my feeling is that the
Bancrofts will be working with Murdoch, rather than against him, in an attempt
to construct some kind of structure which would allow them to sell to him while
not feeling that they’re selling out the paper.