KEY POINTS:
The word that counts most this week is "narrowly" - as in, the Bancroft family has "narrowly voted" not to accept Rupert Murdoch's "friendly" offer to buy the Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones and Barron's magazine for US$5 billion.
Those who have a poor opinion of Murdoch would like to think the bid blocked and moribund. Those with a closer appreciation of the determined digger know this mighty take-over saga isn't over till it's over, and it has only just begun.
We know the Bancrofts took a fortnight or so to ponder the bid before turning it down. No instant assertion of principle there. We know the family is large and diffuse in age and need for cash.
We know "narrowly" is a word implying debate and close resolution. We know Wall Street Journal shares have stuck near to their post-bid high because those that can be traded are being snapped up. And we should know, therefore, that US$5 billion is not Murdoch's final offer. There will be more on the table and there won't be a rival bid within miles of his price. He's always wanted to control either the Wall Street Journal or the London-based Financial Times and now, at 76, he may get what he hankers after.
But no pulsating tale of press life is as simple as that. There are always sub-plots and problems to ponder. Pause now to examine a few.
One - a great theme of American life - is the end of dynasties, as the families that owned its greatest newspapers see their assets losing circulation and advertising. Then they opt for a quick sale and a flusher life. It's happened to the Chandler family in Los Angeles, the Sulzbergers of the New York Times and the Grahams of the Washington Post.
Two - News Corporation is a family business as well, and one with only one practical family heir in a position to succeed dad - that's young James.
Does James have ink as well as blood in his veins? The future of this great one-man band is totally unknown.
Three - is Mr M a fit and proper person to own America's supposed business bible? The answer is more self-evident than it might appear.
The Wall Street Journal in opinion terms makes Fox News look wishy-washy. It would run Attila the Hun for President if he were available. Even a full-blast Murdochisation would make the paper more, not less liberal.
And why pay US$5 billion for a paper whose reporting accuracy and judgment is the foundation of its position if you're going to let that reputation slip away into bias and staff slashings? It doesn't make sense, it would be folly to let it happen - so it won't.
Sub-plot four, though, is much less susceptible to such logic. Even for a wonderful player of hunches (and buyer of MySpace) is this a deal too far?
The Wall Street Journal is no guaranteed money-coiner. It caught an advertising chill as the century changed, and its profits now come primarily from ancillary operations, not from the paper.
By building walls around its online goodies, it may or may not have taken the right road to prosperity. It doesn't build traffic quickly this way and it is vulnerable to digital competitors.
One global community more than any other spends most of its day staring at changing screens, moving at a pace with which no newspaper can compete. That's business community life in 2007.
Maybe Murdoch is right to feel there's plenty of life in print journalism yet. But US$5 billion worth of right?
In sum, a mountain of debating slurry comes with this "friendly" bid.
So watch this space.. It may not be MySpace. But it could be his.
- OBSERVER
