Former Wall St Journal owners: 'We wouldn't have sold if we had known'

[onehandle]

Source: Guardian

A number of key members of the family that controlled the Wall Street Journal say they would not have agreed to sell the prestigious daily to Rupert Murdoch if they had been aware of News International's conduct in the phone-hacking scandal at the time of the deal.

"If I had known what I know now, I would have pushed harder against" the Murdoch bid, said Christopher Bancroft, a member of the family that controlled Dow Jones & Company, publishers of the Wall Street Journal.

Bancroft said the breadth of allegations now on the public record "would have been more problematic for me. I probably would have held out.'' He had sole voting control of a trust that represented 13% of Dow Jones shares in 2007 and served on the Dow Jones board.

Lisa Steele, another family member on the board, said "it would have been harder, if not impossible'' to have accepted Murdoch's bid had the facts been known. "It's complicated," she added, and "there were so many factors" in weighing a sale. But she said: "The ethics are clear to me – what's been revealed, from what I've read in the Journal, is terrible. It may even be criminal."

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/13/wall-st-journal-murdoch-bancroft

---

'How in the world could anyone have suspected four years ago that Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. — the company behind Fox News — might not be stewards of journalistic integrity?'

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/07/13/bancrofts

[DJ13]

1. 'How in the world could anyone have suspected — might not be stewards of journalistic integrity?'

Uh, by WATCHING Fox News?

[eppur_se_muova]

13. It's the new "No one could have predicted that ..." nt

[onehandle]

16. The blogger I linked to was being ironic.

He's a top tech blogger, but occasionally shows himself as one of us.

[tsuki]

BS, pure and simple. They knew what he was, they sold. Fark off already. nt

[cstanleytech]

10. Agreed. NT

[somone]

2. Yeah, right

[Lasher]

3. I agree with you, this is a load of bullshit.

"If I had known what I know now..." sounds like Condi making excuses for 9/11.

[Blue_Tires]

20. Or the Madoff scandal

"How was I supposed to know he was running a fraud scheme? All he did was guarantee me a 15 percent ROI as long as I didn't ask questions..."

[OnyxCollie]

4. Sounds like the Dems who confirmed Roberts and Alito. nt

[No Elephants]

6. "Elections have consequences."

When Republicans win them.

[No Elephants]

5. "I was reluctant to sell the WSJ--until I learned Murdoch was willing to pay big bucks for it."

Seems like yet another instance of very rich folk, trying to have it every which way and not taking any responsibility whatever.

Film at 11.

[Nihil]

19. Got it in one. (n/t)

:toast:

[LuckyLib]

7. Rupert is a sleaze. What part of that did you miss?

[juxtaposed]

8. bull shit,, If there was a knickle on the ground they would have grabed it

[aquart]

9. Pasture pastry. Meadow muffins. Barn buns.

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. Translation: this shit is coming to the US, and probably THIS week

King already signaled it, trying desperately to get in front of the 9/11 families story, even if it pisses off Fox News.

I suspect you're about to see some big names running from the exits.

[Blue_Tires]

18. +1

[sabrina 1]

12. What nonsense, they see the writing on the wall and

are trying to save their reputations like all the other rats jumping ship now in Britain.

If WE knew how evil Murdoch was, then they should have known. I remember how appalled people were at the time that he was buying the WSJ.

The Brits have just killed the deal for Sky and the goal there seems to be to get rid of him and his evil empire completely after 40 years. I hope they bankrupt him completely or otherwise he is likely to be invited over here.

[rpannier]

14. KMA former owners

You knew he was/is a piece of garbage

[grahamhgreen]

15. Bull. They are hoarders, they can't stop themselves.

[Blue_Tires]

17. what-fuckin'-EVER

Now the previous owners are insulting our intelligence as well as their own...

[SOS]

21. Translation:

I couldn't wait to cash Rupert's check.
My PR agent now suggests I express some remorse over selling to
an organized crime syndicate.

[Uncle Joe]

22. This is just a feeble attempt at PR bullshit, knowing that Murdoch was morally bankrupt

in the journalistic integrity department took all the awareness of knowing when to flush a toilet.

Thanks for the thread, onehandle.

[Downtown Hound]

23. Yes, apparently Faux News cheerleading an illegal war

and downplaying the use of torture was perfectly okay for the pig fuckers at the WSJ, but now that there's been phones hacked, NewsCorp has gone too far I tell ya'!

[sybylla]

24. Right. Gelder uber alles on Wallstreet and we're supposed to believe that.

I appreciate the sentiment but that's total hindsight la-la-land bullshit.

[StarburstClock]

25. WSJ = propaganda rag = 0 credibility

They made that obvious when they sold out to Murdick.

[sofa king]

26. They could have asked us.

[Politicub]

27. Idiots crying over spilled milk n/t

[Doctor_J]

28. They're all Fox "News" lovers

how could they not know that Murdoch is an evil fucker?

[The Second Stone]

29. They knew that News Corp lied, sensationalized and

misreported on a daily basis. Their own newspaper supports politicians and judicial nominees who are against a right of privacy for individuals. They want us to believe that systematic violations of privacy, not by the government, but by a private entity is where they would draw the line? It was okay for News Corp tabloids to make up all kinds of lies about famous people to sell headlines, but then, when it turns out that those lies were known to be true, but known only because of invasion of privacy, that is where they would draw the line?

The invasion of privacy acts may be criminal and for a country at large that might be a greater evil, but as a former journalist, lying to the public is a far bigger ethical lapse than printing private information about public figures, or even private figures. Journalists get illicit information all the time, they just don't usually get caught at it and they get fired when they do.