What do you think?
War At The Wall Street Journal: Inside the Struggle to Control an American Business Empire – Murdoch's $5 Billion Acquisition of the Bancroft Family Dynasty
A tale about big business, an imploding dynasty, a mogul at war, and a deal that epitomized an era of change While working at the Wall Street Journal , Sarah Ellison won praise for covering the $5 billion acquisition that transformed the pride of Dow Jones and the estimable but eccentric Bancroft family into the jewel of Rupert Murdoch’s kingdom. Here she expands that story, using her knowledge of the paper and its people to go deep inside the landmark transaction, as no outsider has or can, and also far beyond it, into the rocky transition when Murdoch’s crew tussled with old Journal hands and geared up for battle with the New York Times . With access to all the players, Ellison moves from newsrooms to estates and shows Murdoch, finally, for who he is—maneuvering, firing, undoing all that the Bancrofts had protected. Her superlative account transforms news of the deal into a timeless chronicle of American life and power.
304 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2010
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
February 8, 2024
In-depth account of how Rupert Murdoch acquired the Wall Street Journal from one of the WSJ's media reporters. It was very "inside baseball" so unless you're passionate about the media business or really liked the show "Succession" I wouldn't recommend. Deep dissection of family and business dynamics that were decades in the making. I didn't know a lot about Murdoch but he was a page-turning antagonist throughout.
June 7, 2010
A decently-told story by an author that had a personal stake in the situation and the outcome. It's not too difficult to see where Ellison's heart lies when she refers to Rupert Murdoch and his friends as "robber barons" or when she makes passing reference to the "bellowing" Bill O'Reilly.
My main criticism is that Ellison doesn't start the story early enough. She laments the Bancroft family's decision to sell to Murdoch, but fails to cover the much-earlier family decision to take Dow Jones public in the first place. Like so many family-owned businesses that go public, the family wants to cash in on the value of the company yet retain control of the asset. Then later when a suitor comes along, the beleaguered family can't withstand the pressure of the common stockholders to accept an attractive offer. Well, the family laid the groundwork for that outcome when they took the company public in the first place.
So, not a great book, but a decent-enough book that gives an engaging look into the world of the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch.
My main criticism is that Ellison doesn't start the story early enough. She laments the Bancroft family's decision to sell to Murdoch, but fails to cover the much-earlier family decision to take Dow Jones public in the first place. Like so many family-owned businesses that go public, the family wants to cash in on the value of the company yet retain control of the asset. Then later when a suitor comes along, the beleaguered family can't withstand the pressure of the common stockholders to accept an attractive offer. Well, the family laid the groundwork for that outcome when they took the company public in the first place.
So, not a great book, but a decent-enough book that gives an engaging look into the world of the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch.
November 2, 2011
War at the Wall Street Journal takes the reader inside one of the more unusual takeovers in corporate finance. Any story involving Rupert Murdoch is usually a good one whether you consider him the greatest villain the world has ever known or the shining beacon of journalistic truth there is little doubt that when he is involved you are in for an interesting story. On the other side you have the Bancroft family who are the long term owners of the Dow Jones Company whose crown jewel was the Wall Street Journal. For those who are interested in the transformation that made the Wall Street journal what it is today from the Bancroft's languishing attention to the editorial changes that Rupert Murdoch put in place to the hold out editors on the newsroom floor. This book paints a complete picture of the Journal and Ellison is a quick read with easy to follow story lines in a complex web of corporate takeovers. Well worth the time and fun to read.
June 18, 2014
The book is about the one storied empire of the WSJ brought low by Murdoch who bought it and transformed into just another paper by making it the FOX News of newspaper with "breaking news" instead of in-depth reporting.
The newspaper chose and shaped the news. For the Bancroft's the Boston-based family the selling of the WSJ would allow them to be rid of each others company that bound them to an uneasy alliance while Murdoch's the buying of the WSJ would allow him to shape world wide thoughts. News Corp. was known for its populist papers (its ability to sell papers based on outrages claims) while WSJ was a sophisticated paper with a dwindling audience. Murdoch was an outsider who enjoyed jostling with the old guard but was really a tabloid owner with sensationalist stories that sell but aren't that reliable. While Murdoch rightfully used a business model on national newspapers, NYT owners, Sulzbergers wanted the integrity of newspaper writing to be the model of its newspaper business instead of just another business. Although they were from opposite ends of the political spectrum, they shared a passion for newspapers and were mutually committed to its preservation as a media medium. Murdoch measured his papers by the amount of influence that it wields so does not bother with journalistic objectivity. For example, even though his politics is conservative, he led the Sun to oust Prime Minister John Major "Thatcherite" party to a lose to the labor party's Tony Blair b/c he did not like John Major.
Murdoch was the son of privilege who shaped himself as an upstart to the "establishment". He was enormously successful b/c he loved the game for what it is instead of focusing on the accouterments of success. He kept in the background and preferred results to showmanship. His first foray into the New York world was buying the NY Post and turned into a conservative paper.
The Bancroft family did not have the passion for the newspaper business that their grandfather had and were leaving off the fat of the Bancroft inheritance. For me, the Bancroft family is a good example of why the estate tax and should fund purely "a human capital enrichment program" in the US should be brought back so no American dynasty would ever be created. The Bancroft turned their lack of interest into a virtue of non-interference so that professionals would handle its day-to-day affairs. Despite their liberal leanings, they left the editorial board conservative leanings to themselves to do what they wanted. Murdoch was practical and pragmatic thus preferred company to politicians to Holywood types.
Another reason why I support an estate tax is the children of privileged end up doing drugs especially if their family life gets destroyed by constant infidelities due to parental feelings of invincibility such as Elisabeth's drug habit b/c she lived in a rich part of town. And with legacy of wealth not only does it cause unnecessary retardation of growth for the children, but it also unnecessarily ties family to a fortune thereby causing familial friction. While Elisabeth wanted to divest her fortune and run, Billy III was the most business minded and wanted to right the Dow Jones sinking ship.
Peter Kann was part of the old guard of WSJ who believed in professional integrity of the newsmen as a public trust and believed the old families who owned it allowed the reporters the freedom to do what they believed was fair and balanced. Although Kann was a horrible CEO, he was able to keep the WSJ journalistic integrity. B/c of the WSJ was losing advertising money endemic of all major newspapers in the country, the business side of WSJ was rearing its ugly head. Kann was a great writer who wanted to head the WSJ so looked for a management position but should have stayed where he was good at.
Jimmy, a consummate deal maker, was the only man who could make the Bancroft sell the WSJ to Murdoch with the assurance that the WSJ become nominally independent from ownership.
Unlike the other Bancroft, the Hill cousins were interested in what was happening to the other Bancroft b/c they had normal jobs and were normal people. Leslie Hill was argumentative and did not care what the other Bancroft's thought of her. She was also tired of the WSJ inept management. Kann wanted the WSJ to be a paper beyond reproach and neglected the business of running a paper. While Mike wanted greater transparency b/c he agreed with Lowell that the Bancroft's need to be more involved in running the business as well as the fact they needed to decrease the amount of debt the WSJ was carrying. Lowell wanted to save the WSJ by shaking them out of their stupor of hands off management, make them face tough decisions, and disallow the Hemenway inert stewardship of the Bancroft fortunes.
While Rich Zannino was only interested in the business end of things, Kann's wife, House was only interested in the WSJ in the newspaper integrity of making it the best paper in the world which means as publisher she pissed a lot of people off and did not want any business decision to compromise the integrity of the WSJ.
When Zannino replaced Kann as CEO, Zannino was already looking for his exit strategy to sell to New Corps. To that end, he replaced the executives with journalistic experience with people who know how to run a business. The journalist mistrusted Zannino and he mistrusted them likewise. The WSJ held sway in corporate America by simply existing. But the paper was now competing with 24 hours cable news cycle as well as free news content on the internet. The WSJ decided to analyze the news in order to be more successful instead of simply reporting the news. Even the managing editor job was up for grabs, with Steiger the current managing editor not supporting Zinnino's Ingrassia. Since Steiger knew how to work the politics of the newsroom to Zinnino's ignorance, Steiger caused major issues for Zinnino.
Anna knew Rupert long enough to have have known he would cheat on her after 31 yrs of marriage with Wendi and sought to protect her children's inheritance. Wendi meanwhile was an incouragable social climber who used her sexuality to increasing her social status.
Whereas the prominent branch of the Bancroft family were content with the status quo in order to keep the journalistic integrity, Billy was not an agitated for change in how the family running the WSJ in order to reject a hostile takeover by News Corp. Murdoch tipped a sycophant who knew Billy to set both him and and Elisabeth against the family thereby driving a wedge in it.
B/c Zannino that the newspaper industry was falling apart, he decided to prepare the Dow Jones for its eventual demise. Although a pubic ally traded company could be seen as good for change in the company, it can be also seen as too beholden to its stockholders to have any long-term strategic plan. For example, Zinnino had to turn around the companies fortune @ 18 months is just not realistic given the long decline in stock price. Even though Leslie Hill wanted change, she wanted change in management not ownership. While Murdoch was ready to double the price of the stock, Zinnino was clearly impressed and was on board with the sale.
Murdoch wanted the WSJ and was determined and confident about the outcome. But Murdoch decided work prevented him from spending too much time with his children much to the dismay of his fellow parents.
Whereas Baruchli knew to play the politics of the newsroom, Ingrassia ignored the politics and was blunt to boot so that he lost out to Baruchli in the role as managing editor despite Ingrassia already being promised the job. WSJ sought to attack NYT from the outset. While Peter Kann represented constancy in a sea of change, Richard Zannino represented the much needed transformation for survival. Although the Bancroft's older generation wanted to keep the WSJ integrity, they finally sold out b/c Murdoch was willing to $2 billion above what the company was worth. Unfortunately, the managing director of the board fiduciary responsibility is to the wealth of its shareholders so if their shareholders stand to gain from the deal then they should be able to sell no matter what the controlling entity is.
While Leslie Hill a person who worked for a living was sympathetic to the labor movement and thus opposed the sale of the WSJ, her cousin Elisabeth who never worked in her life was for the WSJ to get the money and forever divorce herself from the family headache. The family's equivocal response to the buyout offer made an opening that Murdoch could strike.
CNBC broke the story of the Murdoch buyout and the WSJ staff and reporters shuddered. When the news broke, the hedge fund managers drove the WSJ stock up making it nearly impossible to refuse a deal since WSJ could be destroyed by reneging on the deal. The staff were all against the deal. Murdoch liked tabloid stories to sell the paper while the old WSJ did not stoop so low. Leslie hated that Zannino was selling out. B/c Zannino was in favor of selling to Murdoch, the board especially Bancrofts no longer trusted him with their company.
B/c the Bancroft said that the family came to a consensus that they were ready to look for outside collaboration which in Wall Street was code for selling. The board was forced to entertain a sale of the WSJ b/c if they did not they would be open to be sued by common shareholders. Although Murdoch promised editorial integrity, he did not uphold it in his other paper takeovers b/c he packed the "independent editorial boards" with his loyalists. B/c Murdoch had the ability to circumvent any contract that he signed, he would agree to it only to reneg on the deal later while Zannino wanted to sell to the highest bidder, Baruchli wanted to keep WSJ editorial independence. In an increasingly divided Bancroft family, everyone outside the family believed that the only way out of their predicament was to sell the company from the Bancrofts. Whereas Leslie Hill wanted to meet with Murdoch just so her cousins would be woken up by Bancroft's traditional complacency, Lisa Steele was thinking that given the upper management wanting to merge with a bigger conglomerate to allow the WSJ to survive then who were the Bancroft's to stand in the way of saving the WSJ.
Murdoch sacrificed journalistic integrity to advance his business interests in China. B/c Murdoch angered the Chinese by saying that mass communication would be a threat to totalitarian regimes everywhere, the Chinese government responded by ordering satellite dishes off the homes. In reparation of those remarks, Murdoch agreed to drop the BBC, made disparaging remarks against the Dalai Llama and Falun Gong in future speeches.
The WSJ editorial in China wanted the Bancrofts to remain in control of the WSJ b/c they feared that Murdoch's significant business interest would warp the journalist reporting about how China reshapes the global capitalistic landscape for ill. Leslie Hill was not assuage by her concern when James Murdoch stated if it doesn't make money, they won't print it. B/c Murdoch dodged Leslie Hill's concern on editorial integrity, she became aggressively the News Corp deal. B/c Murdoch was interested in changing the WSJ, he rejected the oversight provided by the Bancroft family in the deal for editorial independence. When the Bancroft's decided to sell, Kann began lobbying on Murdoch's behalf it seemed inconceivable to him that Murdoch would destroy the paper he coveted so much. Lisa Steele saw her family divided as bad stewards of the WSJ so she decided to cast her lot on the sale of the WSJ.
After the sale of the WSJ to Murdoch, he was widely mistrusted and quietly despised by people in the newsroom. The day after the takeover, Murdoch proved to be a meddler of WSJ by talking calling Brauchli while he was in the middle of his editorial meeting. Murdoch was aware of the reputation that the press gave him as a meddler in his papers and galvanized his News Corp empire to have an us against them viewpoint of attacking the "establishment" as much as they were attacking him. Murdoch clearly wanted to go after the NYT as his sole goal not really to keep the integrity of WSJ but to be the "conservative voice" vs NYT and to destroy its readership. WSJ was already suffering from the fact that Murdoch owned the paper that everything the paper did was tainted by him. Murdoch pandered to his audience as his one marker of success and sought WSJ to entertain its readership. Murdoch only considered his opinion as paramount to WSJ decisions. Murdoch wanted the WSJ paper to break the news instead of doing the in depth reporting that lurked in the "corners of a major news story."
The new managing editor, Brauchli got to his job by being smarter than his competitors not b/c he was collaborative. While Zannino gave a speech on how WSJ would benefit with Murdoch at the helm, Brauchli realized that it was up to him to defend the WSJ journalistic integrity. Murdoch decided to inflate the WSJ profits in order to show it was profitable by reporting the operating income instead of the net income. Murdoch did not care about the culture of the WSJ nor did he care about market research all he cared about is creating WSJ the best paper in the world. He wanted the WSJ midlevel management to be aggressive and have fun and be one of the team. It was the prospect of change that energized him.
4 mo. after the WSJ was sold to News Corps, he would kick out Brauchli as managing editor. He consistently kicks out the management of the company he takes over and replaces them with his own men. Murdoch tried to make friends with politicians and reach out to Clinton who was a fellow pragmatist. She was planning to run for president and didn't hold grudges. At least, Murdoch, a pragmatic conservative, has Ginsberg who worked in the Clinton administration as his spokesman. The WSJ is now a right of center newspaper to the NYT left of center newspaper that is no longer solely focused on business and the economy. So Murdoch kicked out Brauchli in favor of a like-minded editor.
Brauchli decided to black mail Murdoch in order to secure a great severance payment b/c Murdoch has an agreement that he would not fire the managing editor. Murdoch wants to consolidate the media empire under his banner. Murdoch got away with circumventing the rules by paying off Brauchli to say that it was his idea to sever his ties with the WSJ. Resentment over Brauchli jumping ship in the newsroom was palpable. Too bad Thomson wanted to turn the WSJ into a pop version of the newspaper wanting journalist to feel the competitive nature of the newsroom which also means that the stories have become unreliable. Whereas the WSJ used to be above the gossip columns, Murdoch owning the paper meant that the WSJ was now in the middle of all the gossip columns. Murdoch wanted the perception that his WSJ was on the rise when the reality was it was just an accounting trick to make it seem like the WSJ increased its circulation. While the WSJ had midwestern values in not wanting to confront the NYT head on, Thomson continuously railed against NYT in direct confrontation against it.
As managing editor, Thompson acted disparagingly towards the WSJ newsroom and the consequences of Murdoch's decision to focus on breaking storyline instead of the WSJ old in-depth analysis made them just another paper when the financial crisis hit in full force. Murdoch really has an us vs them mentality, he does not stop to think that maybe his emphasis on breaking news and not in-depth reporting is the reason that the WSJ was shut out from the Pulitzer for the 1st time since he took over. Perhaps, the defection of his pulitzer prize journalist should have signaled why he was unable to get WSJ to win a Pulitzer during his watch not b/c he was persecuted by the establishment. Murdoch lost a lot of money on the WSJ but he sought to double down on his investment by placing the WSJ at the heart of his News Corp empire. With Fox News broadcasting everywhere in News Corp, the objectivity that WSJ was known for is now shot. WSJ now attacks the NYT as Fox "fair and balanced" news attacks CNN. But, Murdoch news has no form that is why would anyone pay for news that one can get for free over the internet?
Murdoch makes his headline shocking and plays to red meat politics such as "State Death Taxes Now the Latest Worry" for the Federal Estate Tax. WSJ reporters noticed that quotes criticizing Republicans or praising Obama were cut which further creates the perception that WSJ is anything but "fair and balance". Reporters began to sense the top editors were ordering stories to fit a political agenda. WSJ has become the Fox News of the print world. For example, the obituary of Ted Kennedy was done by Rush Limbaugh who criticized Kennedy's public service record which shows the lack of class WSJ now possessed. For Thompson, conservative breaking news was paramount instead of "objective journalism". Baker joined Thompson in the newsroom policing "left-leaning ideological balance."
The newspaper chose and shaped the news. For the Bancroft's the Boston-based family the selling of the WSJ would allow them to be rid of each others company that bound them to an uneasy alliance while Murdoch's the buying of the WSJ would allow him to shape world wide thoughts. News Corp. was known for its populist papers (its ability to sell papers based on outrages claims) while WSJ was a sophisticated paper with a dwindling audience. Murdoch was an outsider who enjoyed jostling with the old guard but was really a tabloid owner with sensationalist stories that sell but aren't that reliable. While Murdoch rightfully used a business model on national newspapers, NYT owners, Sulzbergers wanted the integrity of newspaper writing to be the model of its newspaper business instead of just another business. Although they were from opposite ends of the political spectrum, they shared a passion for newspapers and were mutually committed to its preservation as a media medium. Murdoch measured his papers by the amount of influence that it wields so does not bother with journalistic objectivity. For example, even though his politics is conservative, he led the Sun to oust Prime Minister John Major "Thatcherite" party to a lose to the labor party's Tony Blair b/c he did not like John Major.
Murdoch was the son of privilege who shaped himself as an upstart to the "establishment". He was enormously successful b/c he loved the game for what it is instead of focusing on the accouterments of success. He kept in the background and preferred results to showmanship. His first foray into the New York world was buying the NY Post and turned into a conservative paper.
The Bancroft family did not have the passion for the newspaper business that their grandfather had and were leaving off the fat of the Bancroft inheritance. For me, the Bancroft family is a good example of why the estate tax and should fund purely "a human capital enrichment program" in the US should be brought back so no American dynasty would ever be created. The Bancroft turned their lack of interest into a virtue of non-interference so that professionals would handle its day-to-day affairs. Despite their liberal leanings, they left the editorial board conservative leanings to themselves to do what they wanted. Murdoch was practical and pragmatic thus preferred company to politicians to Holywood types.
Another reason why I support an estate tax is the children of privileged end up doing drugs especially if their family life gets destroyed by constant infidelities due to parental feelings of invincibility such as Elisabeth's drug habit b/c she lived in a rich part of town. And with legacy of wealth not only does it cause unnecessary retardation of growth for the children, but it also unnecessarily ties family to a fortune thereby causing familial friction. While Elisabeth wanted to divest her fortune and run, Billy III was the most business minded and wanted to right the Dow Jones sinking ship.
Peter Kann was part of the old guard of WSJ who believed in professional integrity of the newsmen as a public trust and believed the old families who owned it allowed the reporters the freedom to do what they believed was fair and balanced. Although Kann was a horrible CEO, he was able to keep the WSJ journalistic integrity. B/c of the WSJ was losing advertising money endemic of all major newspapers in the country, the business side of WSJ was rearing its ugly head. Kann was a great writer who wanted to head the WSJ so looked for a management position but should have stayed where he was good at.
Jimmy, a consummate deal maker, was the only man who could make the Bancroft sell the WSJ to Murdoch with the assurance that the WSJ become nominally independent from ownership.
Unlike the other Bancroft, the Hill cousins were interested in what was happening to the other Bancroft b/c they had normal jobs and were normal people. Leslie Hill was argumentative and did not care what the other Bancroft's thought of her. She was also tired of the WSJ inept management. Kann wanted the WSJ to be a paper beyond reproach and neglected the business of running a paper. While Mike wanted greater transparency b/c he agreed with Lowell that the Bancroft's need to be more involved in running the business as well as the fact they needed to decrease the amount of debt the WSJ was carrying. Lowell wanted to save the WSJ by shaking them out of their stupor of hands off management, make them face tough decisions, and disallow the Hemenway inert stewardship of the Bancroft fortunes.
While Rich Zannino was only interested in the business end of things, Kann's wife, House was only interested in the WSJ in the newspaper integrity of making it the best paper in the world which means as publisher she pissed a lot of people off and did not want any business decision to compromise the integrity of the WSJ.
When Zannino replaced Kann as CEO, Zannino was already looking for his exit strategy to sell to New Corps. To that end, he replaced the executives with journalistic experience with people who know how to run a business. The journalist mistrusted Zannino and he mistrusted them likewise. The WSJ held sway in corporate America by simply existing. But the paper was now competing with 24 hours cable news cycle as well as free news content on the internet. The WSJ decided to analyze the news in order to be more successful instead of simply reporting the news. Even the managing editor job was up for grabs, with Steiger the current managing editor not supporting Zinnino's Ingrassia. Since Steiger knew how to work the politics of the newsroom to Zinnino's ignorance, Steiger caused major issues for Zinnino.
Anna knew Rupert long enough to have have known he would cheat on her after 31 yrs of marriage with Wendi and sought to protect her children's inheritance. Wendi meanwhile was an incouragable social climber who used her sexuality to increasing her social status.
Whereas the prominent branch of the Bancroft family were content with the status quo in order to keep the journalistic integrity, Billy was not an agitated for change in how the family running the WSJ in order to reject a hostile takeover by News Corp. Murdoch tipped a sycophant who knew Billy to set both him and and Elisabeth against the family thereby driving a wedge in it.
B/c Zannino that the newspaper industry was falling apart, he decided to prepare the Dow Jones for its eventual demise. Although a pubic ally traded company could be seen as good for change in the company, it can be also seen as too beholden to its stockholders to have any long-term strategic plan. For example, Zinnino had to turn around the companies fortune @ 18 months is just not realistic given the long decline in stock price. Even though Leslie Hill wanted change, she wanted change in management not ownership. While Murdoch was ready to double the price of the stock, Zinnino was clearly impressed and was on board with the sale.
Murdoch wanted the WSJ and was determined and confident about the outcome. But Murdoch decided work prevented him from spending too much time with his children much to the dismay of his fellow parents.
Whereas Baruchli knew to play the politics of the newsroom, Ingrassia ignored the politics and was blunt to boot so that he lost out to Baruchli in the role as managing editor despite Ingrassia already being promised the job. WSJ sought to attack NYT from the outset. While Peter Kann represented constancy in a sea of change, Richard Zannino represented the much needed transformation for survival. Although the Bancroft's older generation wanted to keep the WSJ integrity, they finally sold out b/c Murdoch was willing to $2 billion above what the company was worth. Unfortunately, the managing director of the board fiduciary responsibility is to the wealth of its shareholders so if their shareholders stand to gain from the deal then they should be able to sell no matter what the controlling entity is.
While Leslie Hill a person who worked for a living was sympathetic to the labor movement and thus opposed the sale of the WSJ, her cousin Elisabeth who never worked in her life was for the WSJ to get the money and forever divorce herself from the family headache. The family's equivocal response to the buyout offer made an opening that Murdoch could strike.
CNBC broke the story of the Murdoch buyout and the WSJ staff and reporters shuddered. When the news broke, the hedge fund managers drove the WSJ stock up making it nearly impossible to refuse a deal since WSJ could be destroyed by reneging on the deal. The staff were all against the deal. Murdoch liked tabloid stories to sell the paper while the old WSJ did not stoop so low. Leslie hated that Zannino was selling out. B/c Zannino was in favor of selling to Murdoch, the board especially Bancrofts no longer trusted him with their company.
B/c the Bancroft said that the family came to a consensus that they were ready to look for outside collaboration which in Wall Street was code for selling. The board was forced to entertain a sale of the WSJ b/c if they did not they would be open to be sued by common shareholders. Although Murdoch promised editorial integrity, he did not uphold it in his other paper takeovers b/c he packed the "independent editorial boards" with his loyalists. B/c Murdoch had the ability to circumvent any contract that he signed, he would agree to it only to reneg on the deal later while Zannino wanted to sell to the highest bidder, Baruchli wanted to keep WSJ editorial independence. In an increasingly divided Bancroft family, everyone outside the family believed that the only way out of their predicament was to sell the company from the Bancrofts. Whereas Leslie Hill wanted to meet with Murdoch just so her cousins would be woken up by Bancroft's traditional complacency, Lisa Steele was thinking that given the upper management wanting to merge with a bigger conglomerate to allow the WSJ to survive then who were the Bancroft's to stand in the way of saving the WSJ.
Murdoch sacrificed journalistic integrity to advance his business interests in China. B/c Murdoch angered the Chinese by saying that mass communication would be a threat to totalitarian regimes everywhere, the Chinese government responded by ordering satellite dishes off the homes. In reparation of those remarks, Murdoch agreed to drop the BBC, made disparaging remarks against the Dalai Llama and Falun Gong in future speeches.
The WSJ editorial in China wanted the Bancrofts to remain in control of the WSJ b/c they feared that Murdoch's significant business interest would warp the journalist reporting about how China reshapes the global capitalistic landscape for ill. Leslie Hill was not assuage by her concern when James Murdoch stated if it doesn't make money, they won't print it. B/c Murdoch dodged Leslie Hill's concern on editorial integrity, she became aggressively the News Corp deal. B/c Murdoch was interested in changing the WSJ, he rejected the oversight provided by the Bancroft family in the deal for editorial independence. When the Bancroft's decided to sell, Kann began lobbying on Murdoch's behalf it seemed inconceivable to him that Murdoch would destroy the paper he coveted so much. Lisa Steele saw her family divided as bad stewards of the WSJ so she decided to cast her lot on the sale of the WSJ.
After the sale of the WSJ to Murdoch, he was widely mistrusted and quietly despised by people in the newsroom. The day after the takeover, Murdoch proved to be a meddler of WSJ by talking calling Brauchli while he was in the middle of his editorial meeting. Murdoch was aware of the reputation that the press gave him as a meddler in his papers and galvanized his News Corp empire to have an us against them viewpoint of attacking the "establishment" as much as they were attacking him. Murdoch clearly wanted to go after the NYT as his sole goal not really to keep the integrity of WSJ but to be the "conservative voice" vs NYT and to destroy its readership. WSJ was already suffering from the fact that Murdoch owned the paper that everything the paper did was tainted by him. Murdoch pandered to his audience as his one marker of success and sought WSJ to entertain its readership. Murdoch only considered his opinion as paramount to WSJ decisions. Murdoch wanted the WSJ paper to break the news instead of doing the in depth reporting that lurked in the "corners of a major news story."
The new managing editor, Brauchli got to his job by being smarter than his competitors not b/c he was collaborative. While Zannino gave a speech on how WSJ would benefit with Murdoch at the helm, Brauchli realized that it was up to him to defend the WSJ journalistic integrity. Murdoch decided to inflate the WSJ profits in order to show it was profitable by reporting the operating income instead of the net income. Murdoch did not care about the culture of the WSJ nor did he care about market research all he cared about is creating WSJ the best paper in the world. He wanted the WSJ midlevel management to be aggressive and have fun and be one of the team. It was the prospect of change that energized him.
4 mo. after the WSJ was sold to News Corps, he would kick out Brauchli as managing editor. He consistently kicks out the management of the company he takes over and replaces them with his own men. Murdoch tried to make friends with politicians and reach out to Clinton who was a fellow pragmatist. She was planning to run for president and didn't hold grudges. At least, Murdoch, a pragmatic conservative, has Ginsberg who worked in the Clinton administration as his spokesman. The WSJ is now a right of center newspaper to the NYT left of center newspaper that is no longer solely focused on business and the economy. So Murdoch kicked out Brauchli in favor of a like-minded editor.
Brauchli decided to black mail Murdoch in order to secure a great severance payment b/c Murdoch has an agreement that he would not fire the managing editor. Murdoch wants to consolidate the media empire under his banner. Murdoch got away with circumventing the rules by paying off Brauchli to say that it was his idea to sever his ties with the WSJ. Resentment over Brauchli jumping ship in the newsroom was palpable. Too bad Thomson wanted to turn the WSJ into a pop version of the newspaper wanting journalist to feel the competitive nature of the newsroom which also means that the stories have become unreliable. Whereas the WSJ used to be above the gossip columns, Murdoch owning the paper meant that the WSJ was now in the middle of all the gossip columns. Murdoch wanted the perception that his WSJ was on the rise when the reality was it was just an accounting trick to make it seem like the WSJ increased its circulation. While the WSJ had midwestern values in not wanting to confront the NYT head on, Thomson continuously railed against NYT in direct confrontation against it.
As managing editor, Thompson acted disparagingly towards the WSJ newsroom and the consequences of Murdoch's decision to focus on breaking storyline instead of the WSJ old in-depth analysis made them just another paper when the financial crisis hit in full force. Murdoch really has an us vs them mentality, he does not stop to think that maybe his emphasis on breaking news and not in-depth reporting is the reason that the WSJ was shut out from the Pulitzer for the 1st time since he took over. Perhaps, the defection of his pulitzer prize journalist should have signaled why he was unable to get WSJ to win a Pulitzer during his watch not b/c he was persecuted by the establishment. Murdoch lost a lot of money on the WSJ but he sought to double down on his investment by placing the WSJ at the heart of his News Corp empire. With Fox News broadcasting everywhere in News Corp, the objectivity that WSJ was known for is now shot. WSJ now attacks the NYT as Fox "fair and balanced" news attacks CNN. But, Murdoch news has no form that is why would anyone pay for news that one can get for free over the internet?
Murdoch makes his headline shocking and plays to red meat politics such as "State Death Taxes Now the Latest Worry" for the Federal Estate Tax. WSJ reporters noticed that quotes criticizing Republicans or praising Obama were cut which further creates the perception that WSJ is anything but "fair and balance". Reporters began to sense the top editors were ordering stories to fit a political agenda. WSJ has become the Fox News of the print world. For example, the obituary of Ted Kennedy was done by Rush Limbaugh who criticized Kennedy's public service record which shows the lack of class WSJ now possessed. For Thompson, conservative breaking news was paramount instead of "objective journalism". Baker joined Thompson in the newsroom policing "left-leaning ideological balance."
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 24, 2017
War at the Wall Street Journal details the takeover of the WSJ by Rupert Murdoch, and the decline of a paper that was almost quaint in its dedication to journalistic integrity and its rapacious desire to give in-depth analysis over long-running stories that had implications for the entire financial system to a conservative alternative to the New York Times and Washington Post.
Sarah Ellison is a former WSJ journalist, and recounts events leading to a metamorphosis that dragged the WSJ into the mire of almost ambulance-chasing headline news. Though rarely touched upon in the text, this course of events is roughly concurrent with Carlos Slim's takeover of the NYT and the later move by Jeff Bezos on the WPO, and both of those newspapers radically changing as a result.
Just about all of the media publications declined, and are continuing on the path of pandering and alienation. Even the New York Times seems to get by on name recognition more than anything else now, as a number of their editorials are little better than pieces from the Huffington Post. There's plenty of quality, but little quality control making it difficult to support the publication over the WPO.
The Washington Post had its own sense of wiplash, going from a hippy left-wing paper (their old characterization) thrust onto the realm of respectable journalism, becoming almost neoconservative during the tail-end of the Bush administration, and then returning to center-left/left wing publication, essentially making it the true counterpart to the Wall Street Journal.
And so that leaves the WPO and the WSJ as the vanguards of newspaper media in the United States, each providing a capable conservative and liberal approaches to the course of events as both of them eagerly chase down the nearest tragedy to give first page headlines to encourage the passerby to consume their product. Which, in the end, is exactly along the lines of what Rupert Murdoch wanted when be bought the paper.
B (85)
Sarah Ellison is a former WSJ journalist, and recounts events leading to a metamorphosis that dragged the WSJ into the mire of almost ambulance-chasing headline news. Though rarely touched upon in the text, this course of events is roughly concurrent with Carlos Slim's takeover of the NYT and the later move by Jeff Bezos on the WPO, and both of those newspapers radically changing as a result.
Just about all of the media publications declined, and are continuing on the path of pandering and alienation. Even the New York Times seems to get by on name recognition more than anything else now, as a number of their editorials are little better than pieces from the Huffington Post. There's plenty of quality, but little quality control making it difficult to support the publication over the WPO.
The Washington Post had its own sense of wiplash, going from a hippy left-wing paper (their old characterization) thrust onto the realm of respectable journalism, becoming almost neoconservative during the tail-end of the Bush administration, and then returning to center-left/left wing publication, essentially making it the true counterpart to the Wall Street Journal.
And so that leaves the WPO and the WSJ as the vanguards of newspaper media in the United States, each providing a capable conservative and liberal approaches to the course of events as both of them eagerly chase down the nearest tragedy to give first page headlines to encourage the passerby to consume their product. Which, in the end, is exactly along the lines of what Rupert Murdoch wanted when be bought the paper.
B (85)
October 9, 2019
Sarah Ellison worked as a reporter at the Wall Street Journal when it was bought out by Rupert Murdoch in 2007. I thought this book was a fascinating behind-the-scenes look at the workings of the paper, the traditional values of the staff, and the effect that the infamous media mogul's acquisition had on the paper.
The first half of the book is devoted to the Bancroft family of Boston who had owned the paper as part of the Dow Jones company for 105 years. The intention of the elders of the family was to hold the paper perpetually and to stay resolutely out of editorial policy. That worked fairly well until the internet came along and created problems for print newspapers worldwide. The book allows us to watch the dynamics in the family as they grew up and apart. As happens often in extended families, the branches found themselves at odds with different ideas for the company. These schisms were exploited by investment bankers, CEOs and Rupert Murdoch resulting in the sale.
I found the second half of the book, after the sale, the most riveting. While the WSJ and Murdoch were both on the conservative side of the political spectrum, they differed greatly in their vision for the paper. The Journal was known for its in-depth analysis of news and events. Murdoch was primarily concerned with profits and circulation statistics. The two different goals had to clash. The struggle of the editors and reporters at the paper to hold on to the paper's traditional values against the pressure from Murdoch and his team made for riveting reading. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the history of the news media and how we reached the point at which we find ourselves today.
The first half of the book is devoted to the Bancroft family of Boston who had owned the paper as part of the Dow Jones company for 105 years. The intention of the elders of the family was to hold the paper perpetually and to stay resolutely out of editorial policy. That worked fairly well until the internet came along and created problems for print newspapers worldwide. The book allows us to watch the dynamics in the family as they grew up and apart. As happens often in extended families, the branches found themselves at odds with different ideas for the company. These schisms were exploited by investment bankers, CEOs and Rupert Murdoch resulting in the sale.
I found the second half of the book, after the sale, the most riveting. While the WSJ and Murdoch were both on the conservative side of the political spectrum, they differed greatly in their vision for the paper. The Journal was known for its in-depth analysis of news and events. Murdoch was primarily concerned with profits and circulation statistics. The two different goals had to clash. The struggle of the editors and reporters at the paper to hold on to the paper's traditional values against the pressure from Murdoch and his team made for riveting reading. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the history of the news media and how we reached the point at which we find ourselves today.
October 20, 2021
This book spends way too much time on a bunch of nobodies within the Bancroft family initially. This makes the first quarter of the book quite hard to get into, and, by the time you see how each member reacts against, first the proposal then the vote, you already forgot their backstory and the drama between family members. Sarah also lacks M&A insights/knowledge and so the details of the WSJ journal deal(and those made by Murdoch previously) were lackluster. Not a lot of insight/investigative journalism with regards to the Murdoch side. Lot of public information about WSJ staff and their behaviors after the merger. Read if you want to learn about the Bancroft and the public outcome of the WSJ staff.
May 20, 2010
War At The Wall Street Journal Inside the Struggle to Control An American Business Empire by Sarah Ellison
Sarah Ellison used to work for the Wall Street Journal before News Corp's takeover of the journal. She wrote this book using a compilation of interviews and newspaper stories. The book feels like you are at many of the reconstructed conversations and deals inside the book. It also describes the people very well; the Bancroft family, the Hill Family, Rupert Murdoch, Peter Kann, Marty Lipton, and others.
This book is a story of deal making and business politics. Sarah Ellison is describing conversations in board rooms, corporate jets, on cell phones, in restaurants, and in private conference rooms. There are no complex charts, managerial theories, or financial figures. We get to read the good and bad characteristics of the people involved; hatreds, rivalries, obsequiousness, personal habits, and fallibilities of some of the most powerful people in the news business.
Sarah Ellison describes the internal workings of the merger between Newscorp and Dow Jones. The focus is on the changes in editorial control and style in the Wall Street Journal. We get to read about how Rupert Murdoch fires and hires people to remake the paper into a different kind of newspaper. Rupert Murdoch's goal is to counter the New York Times by remaking the paper from a conservative business paper into a more national right wing paper which covers politics and culture in addition to business.
She also tells the story of a family in conflict, the Bancroft family who had owned the Dow Jones company for 105 years. It describes how the rise of Google and Yahoo and other new media companies drove down the price of newspaper stocks and caused consolidation in the industry. Rupert Murdoch basically offered more than any other company to take control of Dow Jones.
The story is intriguing. If you want to understand how the news is becoming more polarized between left and right, this book shows how Rupert Murdoch works. It describes a very antagonistic style of news and politics. I found the focus on people and deal making to be different than most business books. There is a very extensive index and notes at the end of the book. The implications of this story are still unfolding.
Sarah Ellison used to work for the Wall Street Journal before News Corp's takeover of the journal. She wrote this book using a compilation of interviews and newspaper stories. The book feels like you are at many of the reconstructed conversations and deals inside the book. It also describes the people very well; the Bancroft family, the Hill Family, Rupert Murdoch, Peter Kann, Marty Lipton, and others.
This book is a story of deal making and business politics. Sarah Ellison is describing conversations in board rooms, corporate jets, on cell phones, in restaurants, and in private conference rooms. There are no complex charts, managerial theories, or financial figures. We get to read the good and bad characteristics of the people involved; hatreds, rivalries, obsequiousness, personal habits, and fallibilities of some of the most powerful people in the news business.
Sarah Ellison describes the internal workings of the merger between Newscorp and Dow Jones. The focus is on the changes in editorial control and style in the Wall Street Journal. We get to read about how Rupert Murdoch fires and hires people to remake the paper into a different kind of newspaper. Rupert Murdoch's goal is to counter the New York Times by remaking the paper from a conservative business paper into a more national right wing paper which covers politics and culture in addition to business.
She also tells the story of a family in conflict, the Bancroft family who had owned the Dow Jones company for 105 years. It describes how the rise of Google and Yahoo and other new media companies drove down the price of newspaper stocks and caused consolidation in the industry. Rupert Murdoch basically offered more than any other company to take control of Dow Jones.
The story is intriguing. If you want to understand how the news is becoming more polarized between left and right, this book shows how Rupert Murdoch works. It describes a very antagonistic style of news and politics. I found the focus on people and deal making to be different than most business books. There is a very extensive index and notes at the end of the book. The implications of this story are still unfolding.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 6, 2016
Ms. Ellison is quite objective throughout the book. The M&A part of the story is nothing special, just like most other M&As. What is great is her review of the Journal.
She shares how the "old" Journal was about well researched investigative reporting, with articles prepared months ahead. The Journal didn’t put news on the front page. Epic features for page 1 were mapped out weeks if not months in advance.
During my professional life, I have frequently asked my colleagues when debating issues the same questions she asks:
"How would we feel about it if it was on the front page of the WSJ?"
These are some of the items I found interesting:
The Sulzbergers (owners of the NY Times) use taxis instead of drivers.
Mr. Murdoch rents out his yatch for $350,000 a week (Let’s remember that he doesn’t need to do it. Wish he would speak to my Supply Chain colleagues and my family about asset utilization)
How the Journal turned out to be the best newspaper in the world by having the highest ethical standards. One good example is how the former editor, Mr. Brauchly, granted the author a leave of absence to write the book promising he would take her back, no matter what she wrote, as long as it was true.
In 1993, the Journal didn’t report on Lorena Bobbit for a month and a half. Then it had a long profile of the urologist who reattached John Bobbitt’s penis. Such aversion to the popular story would end with Murdoch.
The Economist is controlled by an employee trust and Reuter’s golden share which protects the company from a sale.
On September 15, 2018, the main story on page 1 was “The American financial system was shaken to its core on Sunday”. It was the first time since September 12, 2001 that the events of the day warranted a headline that ran across the entire width of the front page (prior to that, the only banner of the sort announced the attack on Pearl Harbor).
Note: I love the Journal. To read The Wall Street Journal is one of my two hobbies.
I been reading the journal since High School, always on weekends. Historically that didn’t matter. This book enabled me to understand why.
She shares how the "old" Journal was about well researched investigative reporting, with articles prepared months ahead. The Journal didn’t put news on the front page. Epic features for page 1 were mapped out weeks if not months in advance.
During my professional life, I have frequently asked my colleagues when debating issues the same questions she asks:
"How would we feel about it if it was on the front page of the WSJ?"
These are some of the items I found interesting:
The Sulzbergers (owners of the NY Times) use taxis instead of drivers.
Mr. Murdoch rents out his yatch for $350,000 a week (Let’s remember that he doesn’t need to do it. Wish he would speak to my Supply Chain colleagues and my family about asset utilization)
How the Journal turned out to be the best newspaper in the world by having the highest ethical standards. One good example is how the former editor, Mr. Brauchly, granted the author a leave of absence to write the book promising he would take her back, no matter what she wrote, as long as it was true.
In 1993, the Journal didn’t report on Lorena Bobbit for a month and a half. Then it had a long profile of the urologist who reattached John Bobbitt’s penis. Such aversion to the popular story would end with Murdoch.
The Economist is controlled by an employee trust and Reuter’s golden share which protects the company from a sale.
On September 15, 2018, the main story on page 1 was “The American financial system was shaken to its core on Sunday”. It was the first time since September 12, 2001 that the events of the day warranted a headline that ran across the entire width of the front page (prior to that, the only banner of the sort announced the attack on Pearl Harbor).
Note: I love the Journal. To read The Wall Street Journal is one of my two hobbies.
I been reading the journal since High School, always on weekends. Historically that didn’t matter. This book enabled me to understand why.
May 7, 2010
As a former WSJ reporter I was fascinated by this book. From everything I know, it is true, and it had a lot of stuff I didn't know. As you'd expect from Ellison, a WSJ reporter who covered the story, it's detailed, clearly sourced and highly accurate.
It's also very readable. Even though I knew how the story would come out -- the family would take the multi-billion dollar offer, and Murdoch would exert control and change editors and the nature of the paper -- I kept turning the pages to find out just how this occurred. Ellison doesn't disappoint.
The second half of the book has a lot of interesting detail on how Robert Thomson has changed the paper. Individual readers have to judge that on their own. Ellison makes it clear that she thinks the recent lack of Pulitzer Prizes and the de-emphasis of deeply reported leders show the paper has declined.
For myself, I find it odd that the nation's premiere business paper has relegated almost all business coverage to the second and third sections. The economic stories in the front section are consistent with the long-term strength of the paper. But it's unfortunate that the Journal is downplaying coverage of the world's businesses at a time when globalized companies exert a growing influence on employees and politicians.
It's also very readable. Even though I knew how the story would come out -- the family would take the multi-billion dollar offer, and Murdoch would exert control and change editors and the nature of the paper -- I kept turning the pages to find out just how this occurred. Ellison doesn't disappoint.
The second half of the book has a lot of interesting detail on how Robert Thomson has changed the paper. Individual readers have to judge that on their own. Ellison makes it clear that she thinks the recent lack of Pulitzer Prizes and the de-emphasis of deeply reported leders show the paper has declined.
For myself, I find it odd that the nation's premiere business paper has relegated almost all business coverage to the second and third sections. The economic stories in the front section are consistent with the long-term strength of the paper. But it's unfortunate that the Journal is downplaying coverage of the world's businesses at a time when globalized companies exert a growing influence on employees and politicians.
March 11, 2011
This book was written very well. It tells the story of Rupert Murdoch's take over of the Wall Street Journal. The book is written as if it were a novel, and even though the ended (ie the fate of the Wall Street Journal) is known by all who pick it up, the book still holds your attention with just how difficult and bloody the whole ordeal is going to be. Sarah Ellison doesn't pull any punches, and shows the people in the story not in a great light or a horrible light, but in the blinding noon light of day. While I don't know these people personally, I have the feeling that I know who they really are and why they made the choices that they did. My opinion of Rupert Murdoch remains unchanged. As a businessperson he is one of a kind, as a right wing owner of the number one newspaper in nearly every major first world country, he scares the hell out of me. If the world of journalism interests you and you would like to see some of Murdoch (and other important journalstic people) in the light of this huge event, please pick up this book.
June 15, 2010
The remarkable attribute of this thought-provoking account was weighing in, and trying to grasp, the passably supposed factors that not only tell how this family-owned media titan changed ownership, and thus the direction of the journal’s reporting structure, but WHY?
This was the key for me; comparing what was, and the benefits to the niches it served, versus the direction where the new owner was looking to take the paper. Ellison does a fine job here, just by providing the spectrum to cogitate. My only crawl, which isn’t a bad thing at all, was doing my own due diligence analyzing where I saw triumphs and pitfalls. It’s one of the features I really liked about the old journal; not just telling news, but analyzing it. Whether right or wrong, it’s what makes for a compelling media, and in this case, a beguiling story.
Noteworthy reporting and documentation.
This was the key for me; comparing what was, and the benefits to the niches it served, versus the direction where the new owner was looking to take the paper. Ellison does a fine job here, just by providing the spectrum to cogitate. My only crawl, which isn’t a bad thing at all, was doing my own due diligence analyzing where I saw triumphs and pitfalls. It’s one of the features I really liked about the old journal; not just telling news, but analyzing it. Whether right or wrong, it’s what makes for a compelling media, and in this case, a beguiling story.
Noteworthy reporting and documentation.
March 12, 2018
In 2006 I went to college and really got into newspapers. My favorite Sunday ritual was going through the Sunday Chicago Tribune. Studying business, I was also a regular reader of The Wall Street Journal. Now, having read 'War at the Wall Street Journal' I better understand the tick-tock of what was happening in the newsroom and the board rooms as Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation was bidding for and then taking over WSJ publisher, Dow Jones & Company (2007).
This is as thrilling of a read you will ever get related to: newspapers, corporate governance, corporate finance, and M&A. (so not very thrilling if you're not into that sort of stuff). But I am, so I found the read very enjoyable.
The author had excellent inside access and conducted many interviews to get the scoop. So there was plenty of drama.
This is as thrilling of a read you will ever get related to: newspapers, corporate governance, corporate finance, and M&A. (so not very thrilling if you're not into that sort of stuff). But I am, so I found the read very enjoyable.
The author had excellent inside access and conducted many interviews to get the scoop. So there was plenty of drama.
May 21, 2016
Love him or hate him, there is no denying Rupert Murdoch is a business maverick and visionary. Building an immense media empire out of a single small newspaper in Australia is an amazing feat. This "fly on the wall" tale of how he ended up with his most coveted prize is a fantastic read with deep lessons on hubris, multi-generation family businesses and the difficulty of marrying business objectives with those of journalism.
This is a thoroughly enjoyable book about one of the most covered deals of the last 10 years. At times reminiscent of "Barbarians at the Gate."
This is a thoroughly enjoyable book about one of the most covered deals of the last 10 years. At times reminiscent of "Barbarians at the Gate."
July 25, 2011
It's about Murdoch but it's also about a clash between the old world and the new in New York's financial center. The fourth generation of a family owning a prestigious media property comes face to tace with Wall Street's M&A machine. A mismatch. Dow Jones' owners get swept away in the transaction and its management team gets swept out after it. This is a solid piece of journalism and an interesting read.
June 6, 2016
An interesting book and a quick, engaging read. The first half covers the takeover bid by Rupert Murdoch for Dow Jones, principally on how the Bancroft family dealt with it. The second half covers the Journal post-takeover and the many changes that have occurred. The author is a compelling writer and clearly had full access to most of the key players. It was not my imagination that the Journal has changed more in the past few years than it did in my prior 15 years of reading it.
March 23, 2022
A detailed account of the battle for control of Dow Jones and The Wall Street Journal, revealing how family ownership, corporate governance, culture, and strategic ambition collide around a valuable business asset. The book is strongest as a case study in control and shareholder alignment, showing that ownership without coherent governance can become a serious strategic weakness.
May 11, 2010
Rupert Murdoch isn't an evil genius, he just knows what people want. A fascinating fly-on-the-wall report from a journalist working for the Wall Street Journal reporting on the process of acquisition.
June 8, 2010
i wouldn't have thought i'd be interested in this topic and just started it because it was written by a friend of mine. But i found it to be quite a page turner. very engaging, well written and interesting. and amazingly brave of her to write given that hardly anyone comes out well in it.
June 5, 2010
I preferred Michael Wolf's bio of Rupert Murdoch on this topic. But this does give the backstory on what went on with the Bancroft family.
June 8, 2010
Interesting, if not entirely compelling. If you care about Business journalism though, its a worthy read.
July 15, 2010
Fair. Interesting about the "behind the scenes" buying the WSJ from the Bancroft family. I like Murdoch.
September 25, 2010
Really helped me understand how NewsCorp changes the papers it buys. I've seen these same changes initiated at the WSJ
Read
August 14, 2011I liked reading about the process of the whole process but I am disturbed that one man could have so much power and have so many employees licking his boots.
November 20, 2012
How Rupert Murdock buys the Journal from the Bancroft heirs and remakes it in his own image. Glad he's not my boss!
March 30, 2013
A should-read company profile for knowledge workers, managers, directors, C-levels, and entrepreneurs.
July 23, 2019
A riveting story that is worth reading.
March 27, 2012
Glad that I read this. Have a notepad when you read this to keep track.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews