Murdoch clinches deal for publisher of Journal
Bancroft family members offer enough support to finalize $5 billion sale

MSNBC News Services
Updated: 1 hour, 14 minutes ago
NEW YORK - Media baron Rupert Murdoch Tuesday clinched a $5 billion deal to take over the publisher of The Wall Street Journal, achieving his long-treasured goal of adding the esteemed business newspaper to his global stable of properties.

Murdoch's News Corp. has won the support of 32 percent of the Dow Jones voting shares controlled by the Bancroft family, enough to ensure a comfortable margin of victory, The Wall Street Journal reported in its online edition.

“The Bancroft family has accepted,” John Prestbo, editor and executive director of Dow Jones Indexes, told reporters on Tuesday in Chicago. Dow Jones “will be part of News Corp.,” he said. Prestbo told Reuters the information came from an internal company memo.


Dow Jones stock surged 12 percent to near the offering price of $60 a share, reflecting rising confidence that the deal, which has appeared shaky in recent days, would be finalized.

The completion of the deal will give Murdoch a valuable asset ahead of the planned October launch of his new Fox financial news television network, which will compete with entrenched leader CNBC. CNBC has had a close relationship with the Journal over the years, including on-camera appearances by many Journal reporters.

(CNBC is a unit of NBC Universal, which also co-owns MSNBC.com in a joint venture with Microsoft Corp.)

A Monday deadline came and went with the Bancroft family representatives making no comment on how members would vote. But the two sides appeared to be edging closer to a final decision, according to reports in major news outlets.

The final sticking point involved the payment of legal and advisory fees, according to CNBC's David Faber.

The boards of both companies planned to meet Tuesday to discuss whether to proceed with the deal, The Wall Street Journal reported. News Corp.’s board of directors set a meeting for 4 p.m. ET, and the Dow Jones board planned to meet at 7 p.m.

On Monday a News Corp. spokesman said the company was “highly unlikely” to go ahead with the deal if the level of support among the Bancrofts had remained at just 28 percent of the shareholder vote, which was reported as the level of commitment as of Sunday.

Late negotiations reportedly centered on whether News Corp. would pay the Bancroft family’s advisory fees — which could total at least $30 million — if it received the support of at least one of two key holdout shareholders. The support of those holdouts would seal the deal, the Journal reported.

The Journal, which cited unnamed people familiar with the situation, said neither of the shareholders had agreed as of late Monday.

The Bancrofts collectively control 64 percent of the shareholder vote of Dow Jones through a special class of stock, but only about half of them need to support the deal for it to succeed. The Bancrofts are a diverse clan spanning several generations and their voting interest in the company is held through a complex series of privately held trusts, making the outcome difficult to predict.

Independent shareholders, who control about 29 percent of the vote, are expected to vote overwhelmingly in favor of the deal. Murdoch's offer represents a rich premium over the mid-$30s price Dow Jones shares had before the offer became public in early May.

The Bancroft family has been deeply divided over whether to sell to Murdoch, largely over concerns that his brash style could affect the coverage of one of the nation's most respected newspapers.

Murdoch says any concerns about corporate meddling in the Journal’s news coverage are unwarranted. News Corp. has agreed to create a committee that would have to sign off on any decision to hire or fire top editors at the paper.

In a lengthy letter to fellow family members last week, Bancroft descendant Crawford Hill urged them to vote for a sale, saying the family hadn’t taken an active enough role in overseeing Dow Jones and was now “paying the price for our passivity over the past 25 years.”

Dow Jones’ board has tentatively approved the deal, and the final decision now rests with the Bancrofts. Besides several Bancroft family members, including Dow Jones director Christopher Bancroft, Murdoch’s bid is also being opposed by former board member Jim Ottaway Jr., whose family controls 7 percent of the shareholder vote.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

Does he already own the Times?

the New York Times?

Yes, the NYT. Jesus, you're so demanding with your requests for clarifcation and whatnot. Can't you just read my mind already?

sorry babycakes

no, Murdoch doesn't own the Times

I guess I'm going crazy, because I thought the Times was trying to stave off being acquired by News Corp, while the Wall Street Journal already had and its writers were generally saying that day to day activities weren't affected. And yes, I'm far too lazy to google this to figure out what I am recollecting. Or perhaps misrecollecting.

he owns The Times (UK)

it will be interesting to see how long he intends to live up to this statement and how the committee is put together for that matter...

and the New York Post.

And Sky TV

If you don't like his paper don't read it. Or have you and your ilk minded friends pony up the money and buy your own paper or start one.

Would this have been an issue for you if Michael Moore bought the paper? Seriously who cares who owns it. There are more sources of news than ever before. Am I really supposed to care who owns my local paper? Is one owner's bias any better or worse than anothers. Sorry but is just sounds like whining to me.

hHow old are you like 15?



Murdoch's media doesn't just have a bias, they just have shit journalism. To imply bias is one thing, never mind that a company like Fox is the most embarassing name in the national news media. Not that I care if the Wall St. Journal turns into a cheap right-wing tabloid, I don't read it.

coming from a boy who tells posters to kill themselves and that they have no friends......

I think I was addressing Tyler, not you, you fat white trash piece of shit.

even if i was white trash, id still be 100 x's the man you think you are

Calm down boys.

It would be one thing coming from anybody else, but knowing how often you follow me from thread to thread to thread just to throw out some lame personal jab for no apparent reason, I can't help but NOT feel sorry for you since you just invite shit upon yourself.

You're repeatedley engaging in a banable offense. Now fuck off and die.

There's nothing sacred about any press. The only thing sacred should be press freedom from the government. This freedom has never been greater than it currently is. The barriers to publishing something to the world are basically nil. Take a look at the internet, all true freedom of the press has really led to is freedom to bullshit.

In all your thread you've yet to give a reason why we should care who owns any paper. So even if I was 15, I'd be a 15 year old with more common sense and ability to think logically than you seem to possess at whatever age you are. But don't worry, if it helps you to feel better about yourself ... I am most definitely white trash.

The only reason this is an issue is because the Wall Street Journal has no peer in teh world of business and financial journalism. If the reporting side of the Journal is compromised by Murdoch, then there is no other competitor to take its place on top. It's a straight loss for the business community.

There was a commentator on Olbermann last night who basically said that Murdoch is on a mission to degrade the idea of "news" in general. By infecting his "news" with so much opinion, politics, and most importantly lies, distortions and generally poor journalistic practices, he has made it so that people don't trust their news as being of a higher integrity than politics or propaganda. He has degraded the idea that there is such a thing as OBJECTIVE TRUTH than can be known and reported. If people don't believe that truth can be known, then all truth, and therefore all morality, is relative.

That's Rupert Murdoch's contribution to the world of journalism.